Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misandry

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The nomination has zero basis in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and even a modicum of research reveals, as pointed out below (and indeed as pointed out in the article), that there is no shortage of sources upon this subject. I also caution 207.62.186.233 (talk · contribs) to refrain from personal attacks against other editors, such as exemplified below, and also to read our policies on Wikipedia not being a soapbox and the Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia is not here to promote the personal viewpoints of its editors. It's an encyclopaedia. If you want to argue a case for your personal views of the merits of this subject, please do so in an appropriate venue, such as an article published in a relevant scholarly journal, not here. Uncle G 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misandry

• Delete - Misandry is just an artificial construct of the Patriarchy created because they hate it when feminists assert themselves and try to deconstruct the Phallocentric male-female power dynamic. -207.62.186.233 23:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Article on a notable topic of recent political/academic interest, verified through reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid rationale for deletion. Shimeru 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - dunno that this qualifies for speedy but if so, then speedy. Nomination is nonsensical. Otto4711 00:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Anon, unknowingly or not, is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.--Djrobgordon 00:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Although it could stand to be revised for a more neutral POV, the topic is notable and the page is informative. --Strangerer (Talk) 00:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Why is it when a Feminist wants to discuss something, all you misogynists come out of the woodwork with your "Speedy" and "Strong" Keeps? -207.62.186.233 00:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Because this isn't the place to discuss whether or not misandry is an artificial construct. This forum is for discussing whether the concept of misandry has been discussed and written about enough that is should be defined on Wikipedia. I think eugenics is garbage science, but that doesn't mean we should delete the article.--Djrobgordon 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article clearly has problems, not the least of which is its overreliance on a single, controversial book. However, a review of Google Scholar will show that there are other sources that use this term. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. WP:POINT Dragomiloff 00:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.