Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother/whore dichotomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mother/whore dichotomy

  • I don't query that this dichotomy exists, but I do wonder if we need a separate page on it. Wouldn't it be better to rework it into views of Women somewhere? Slac speak up! 23:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. It's a widely used term -- even on Wikipedia. Even if its part of a bigger subject, you give popular jargon its own article. Problem is, I have no idea what the bigger subject is.
  • The exact phrase returns only 35 non-duplicative Google hits (and several of them are near duplicates). The content of those hits show that the phrase is used in a reasonably consistent manner. Despite the low number of google hits, it appears to be a recognized phrase in post-feminism. However, none of the available evidence supports the claims made in the current version of this article. Delete as unverifiable unless authoritatively sourced and/or cleaned up within the discussion period. Rossami (talk) 02:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Whilst the "madonna vs. whore" concept deserves an article, this isn't it. Unverifiable. Delete or rewrite completely and rename to a better name. -- The Anome 02:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Try madonna-whore complex as a better title? (760 Google hits) -- The Anome 02:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Important concept but is this the right title for it. Capitalistroadster 04:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • PS. Would vote to keep decent article or stub but this isn't it. Delete unless improved. Capitalistroadster 04:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jungian psychology? —Wahoofive | Talk 04:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable theory. Megan1967 07:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • JUST KEEP IT! Same reasons as Isaac Rabinovitch. Scott Gall 09:06, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's a good article - a widely used term. I was born in Romania, therefore I know where I stand on the scale. I'm more of a mother than a whore. I have a two-year-old son named Peter. NazismIsntCool 09:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per The Anome. A mention of the concept may be made at Misogyny if it isn't already. --Angr/comhrá 13:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I hope that those voting "keep" are undertaking to improve the quality of the article. Slac speak up!
  • Delete. Seems mostly like nonsense to me. Arkyan 03:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless seriously cleaned up and probably renamed. The "infamous" Tim MacKay has no article, which makes me wonder just how infamous he is. Brief mention of this theory can be made elsewhere. -R. fiend 15:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right, the bit about Tim MacKay is probably in the author's imagination. But that's an argument for converting the article into a stub, not for deleting it. ---Isaac R 04:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with a possible rewrite. It's a real term that is worthy of an article, regardless of the current state of the article. --Myles Long 20:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to misogyny. It's a highly notable concept that goes by several names; I think misogyny is the best umbrella to park it under. Don't delete it, in any case. FreplySpang (talk) 00:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep it! it's a commonly used term in Women's studies and historical feminist studies. It sounds bad, but it's an intellectual term found in university text books and journals. (Unsigned comment by User:154.5.70.9).
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.