Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex integration and ageism

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 delete. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sex integration and ageism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the cited sources discuss the intersection of the two topics. Much of the content is not related to either, let alone both. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree strongly with Roscelese. This is the third time this editor seeks to 'Delete' before discussing. Reaching consensus through discussion is the foremost principle of Wikipedia, yet this editor has made no such entries on the 'Discussion' page for this or the other two articles. This 'Deletion' process should be halted for that alone. The intersection complained about by the above editor takes many forms: ageism by older women against younger men, by older men against women of similar age, younger men preferring women of similar age, younger women preferring older men, sex integration by older women having comparable power to older men, in that sexual age disparity is not associated with lower socio-economic status and that it is common for many cultures. These have been properly referenced. One topic not yet dealt with under ageism is younger people ruling, under sex integration: younger women ruling instead of older men. The article is a start, not a deletion candidate. I further question that an editor has the right to nominate for deletion in this manner at all. Marshallsumter (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor may propose to delete an article without first discussing. Also, a start-level classification does not make an article safe from deletion. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is the discussion.--v/r - T P 14:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deleteAs a point of order discussion on a talk page is not a pre-requisite to AfD discussion. Any editor has "the right" to nominate an article for deletion if they have concerns about its suitability. On the merits of the article itself it seems to be entirely original research. The sources discuss one or the other, not both. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is a grab bag of unrelated items presented in the hope that a topic will be discovered among them. This is a violation of WP:SYNTH, in which we are instructed not to conclude a third idea after showing two ideas which are separate. Out it goes.... Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article pulls in a lot of semi-related topics, and never really addresses the issue in the title.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of a set of essays, with an definite implied POV, , dealing with subjects we already have. Editors would do better expanding those well-establishedexisting articles than in making new overlapping ones. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ First, thank you User:Binksternet for mentioning about the 'Deletion' template. My earlier understanding is that only admins use that and discussions should first take place on the 'Discussion' page. This is not a 'synthesis' nor 'original research'. A simple Google Scholar search using terms: "sex integration" and "aging" demonstrates that it is neither and authors are intersecting the two. Using 'ageism' with 'sex integration' does not produce any references yet these authors often refer to policies regarding gender and aging that are 'ageism'. Using the title, "Aging and sex integration" seems more like Egalitarian mortality, which is a term used in the literature. Marshallsumter (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may not cast more than one vote in a deletion discussion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Another of an apparent series of original research articles that seek to advance the dubious notion of a unisex utopia. Looking forward to Sex integration and the Palestinian question, myself. All of these articles actually probably should be moved to the author's user page or a subpage thereof. There are cited facts and research in all of them, and they could be used to amend existing articles on single subjects; but these syntheses don't really qualify as separate article subjects. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The primary objection here is that this is some sort of off the wall synthesis. The prohibition against "synthesis" is one of the unfortunate anachronisms of the Days of Yore on Wikipedia, when philosophers roamed the earth and bashed bellies over conceptualizations of the revolutionary notion of an online encyclopedia. Every single biography on Wikipedia is a "synthesis" to one extent or another. It is the way that encyclopedia article-writing is done, plain and simple: assembling disparate tidbits of information from various sources into a coherent whole. This is no different, unfortunate title aside. A title change should calm nerves: Effects of gender integration on ageism or some such gets closer to the mark than this ultra-esoteric title. Is that an encyclopedic topic, I ask? Yes. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an encyclopedic topic unless there are sources discussing it, which there aren't. That's why it's up for deletion; a simple name change won't solve this problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a big bellied philosopher, Carrite's observations are true, which is what makes them dangerous. At least some history is compiled out of records that weren't made with the needs of historians in mind; registries of births and deaths, original polemics from the era, tombstone inscriptions, legal pleadings, and so forth. On the other hand, neither Oliver Cromwell nor Lucius Cornelius Sulla are original theses in themselves; we begin with the assumption that they exist and are worthy of study. The instant article, by contrast, is not about a pre-existing object of study. Instead, it's an original polemic, that seeks both to persuade us that a problem exists, and propose what to do about it. That's what makes it "original research", which like "notability" is a bit of jargon that's drifted a bit away from its ordinary meaning. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These are topics thrown together randomly with each separately referenced but with no sense of any integration that answers the title of the article. This is topic invention not an encyclopaedic subject. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is a synthesis essay. References fail to establish notability of this as a single topic. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least eight authors have discussed Sex integration and ageism, or the association of sex integration with ageism, that meets Wikipedia's Notability criteria. I didn't find User:Roscelese, User:Binksternet, User:HominidMachinae, User:Ihcoyc, User:Velella, or User:Jsfouche on the 'View history' record of editing first before nomination for deletion or a vote of 'Deletion' following the usual guidelines. May I suggest that you check 'Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines' rather than resorting to 'Deletion' first. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Synthesis/original research. This might be a fine research paper for academic purposes, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research or for a survey/synthesis type analysis. Btw there is no need to look at "articles not satisfying the notability guidelines" because the issue here is not notability; it is original research/synthesis. (However if we do look at that policy, it says "Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted".) And there is no requirement that an editor must actually make an edit to the article before they can express an opinion about whether to keep it in wikipedia or delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another one of a long series of unnecessary articles duplicating existing encyclopedia content, and from an implied POV. It is much better to add content to the actual articles on the individual concepts. I can imagine a whole string of similar--but I'm not writing them down, because of WP:BEANS. . DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.