Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence and sex integration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Larry V (talk | email) 23:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Violence and sex integration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:ESSAY. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article discusses Sex integration and violence. The violence is either associated with efforts of sex integration or as a male preserve, which sex integration demonstrates it is not. A simple Google Scholar search using "Violence" and "Sex integration" brings up some of the references and more that can be included in a 'Start' article. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources discuss this topic. Instead, it is a synthesis of various sources, none of which make the argument of the article topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- continuing my 'Keep' vote The Google Scholar search I mentioned demonstrates that the page is neither 'Original research' nor a 'Synthesis' banned by Wikipedia. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's odd; when I search Google Scholar for "violence" plus "sex integration" I come up with a lot of articles which do not make the connection which is shown in this topic, supposedly Violence and sex integration. Your notional topic is not supported by any entries Google Scholar. If you dispute this, cite one of them and we can discuss it. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Try E Anderson, "“I used to think women were weak”: orthodox masculinity, gender segregation, and sport," at url=http://www.ericandersonphd.com/resources/2008%20I%20used%20to%20think%20women%20were%20weak%20-%20Sociological%20Forum.pdf. The author discusses violence and sex integration. Also, again, thank you for testing the Google Scholar search. I've added it and some points from it to the page. Marshallsumter (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's odd; when I search Google Scholar for "violence" plus "sex integration" I come up with a lot of articles which do not make the connection which is shown in this topic, supposedly Violence and sex integration. Your notional topic is not supported by any entries Google Scholar. If you dispute this, cite one of them and we can discuss it. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is clearly a synthesis essay on the two topics. The references fail to establish this single topic as notable. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the page's creation on 6 May 2010, six editors have contributed. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a disingenuous misrepresentation. Since it was nominated for deletion, only one editor, yourself, has touched it. The link you provided to E. Anderson was probably intended to be this where Anderson says his study suggests "that gender-integrating sports might potentially decrease some of the socionegative outcomes attributed to male team sport athletes, possibly including violence against women." Anderson's wishy-washy wording is not at all conclusive, and his determination comes from comparing men who remain on all-male sports teams through college to men who were on all-male teams in high school but in college they do not make the cut and instead choose to be on cheerleading squads with women. Anderson only talked to the yell leaders, not the men who stayed on all-male sports teams through college. The comparison Anderson makes, weakly, is flawed at its root: he only interviewed one side of the comparison. Even Anderson says "the results are not conclusive". I don't believe the material under discussion has enough of a topic to merit its own article. Delete. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for acknowledging that Violence and sex integration is a topic discussed by a reliable source and that the page is not synthesis or essay. My comment above is a fact from the 'View history' page, not a misrepresentation. Marshallsumter (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a disingenuous misrepresentation. Since it was nominated for deletion, only one editor, yourself, has touched it. The link you provided to E. Anderson was probably intended to be this where Anderson says his study suggests "that gender-integrating sports might potentially decrease some of the socionegative outcomes attributed to male team sport athletes, possibly including violence against women." Anderson's wishy-washy wording is not at all conclusive, and his determination comes from comparing men who remain on all-male sports teams through college to men who were on all-male teams in high school but in college they do not make the cut and instead choose to be on cheerleading squads with women. Anderson only talked to the yell leaders, not the men who stayed on all-male sports teams through college. The comparison Anderson makes, weakly, is flawed at its root: he only interviewed one side of the comparison. Even Anderson says "the results are not conclusive". I don't believe the material under discussion has enough of a topic to merit its own article. Delete. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regarding Notability, the page has at least six reliable references that discuss the association of sex integration with violence. By Wikipedia's own standards the page is notable. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't find User:SarekOfVulcan, User:Binksternet, or User:Jsfouche on the 'View history' record of editing before the 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) 21:46, 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. 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. And there is no requirement that an editor must actually make an edit to the article in order to express an opinion about whether to keep it in wikipedia or delete it. BTW it looks to me as if user:Marshallsumter has produced a whole series of these "X and sex integration" articles on Wikipedia, and I doubt if any of them meet Wikipedia's rules. To repeat: Wikipedia is NOT the place to publish a research paper, an original survey/synthesis type paper, or any other academic type paper. Wikipedia is only here to report what has been said elsewhere in Reliable Sources. See WP:NOT. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There could be a topic here, but to speak quite frankly, it would need to be handled by a competent editor who can identify a scope and stick with it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Marshallsumter.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:05, 14 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 ) 22:08, 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.