Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men and feminism (2nd nomination)

Men_and_feminism

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

Long standing WP:NPOV, WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:COATRACK issues that have not been addressed in many years. The topics here also have better maintained independent articles. Also, the article seems to have degraded significantly (at least in NPOV terms) since the last deletion discussion in 2007. This tells me that the page would not be able to remain free of issues even if the effort is put into fixing them. Equaaldoors (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing covered here that isn't already covered in our other articles, in more NPOV ways. It's a POV contentfork as it stands, and unlikely to get hugely better. Kevin (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content problems stem from the intangibility of the subject and that is never going to be resolved. The same content is better covered by existing independent articles. Exok (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It discutes a notable topic, the article is well developped and sourced. --FavorLaw (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I expressed concerns about this article in 2010 and it still seem very poor. As well as the NPOV issues there's also the open-ended nature of the title and it still reads like an undergraduate essay to some extent. It's also worth noting that the previous AfD discussion came out quite strongly in favor of delete (5 vs 2) though this wasn't considered to be consensus for some reason.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a lot of referenced info in here. I'm not going to comment on whether the article should stay or not, but if it is to be deleted I think it would be prudent to userify first, contact the relevant wikiprojects, and see if any of the info and refs are useful for other articles. (I've done it here, though this particular topic isn't so much my area) LukeSurl LukeSurl^{t c} 00:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reasons listed in the deletion nomination (note, I nominated this, but this is my first afd, so I don't know if I should comment here). Equaaldoors (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with all the original arguments for deletion and stated the same on the article's talk page at one point. There is some decent, sourced content there and an effort should be made to find it a home, but the article title is hopelessly open-ended and has no chance of ever being NPOV. Further, the existing content doesn't lend itself to being left mish-mashed together under a different article name.--Cybermud (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as before from the first AfD discussion, and even more so now. It's been extensively edited since the last AfD, and has been improved past the stub phase. It has problems with style, but that can be fixed. It is heavily sourced. I'm not sure where it could be merged into. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reason I said in the previous AfD. I agree the article is improved, but it doesn't change my fundamental view that it is an essay and not an encyclopedic survey of an encyclopedic subject. I had never seen WP:COATRACK before looking at this page, but that seems spot on to me. --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This seems to have started life as a student essay, and it was interesting but not appropriately written for WP. Over time, as people have tried to make it more appropriate, it has become disjointed, so it needs a bit of work. I would say keep if there are people willing to fix it, then after 12 months revisit whether it should be deleted. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think anyone's really willing to put the effort into fixing it properly. The article has been covered with banners calling out various major issues for multiple years, with little positive effect. Maybe some references were added here or there, and formatting tweaked, but that's about it. Someone could take a hacksaw to the POV, but I'm afraid the general issues will cause it to re-occur. -Equaaldoors (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs some clean up; a tag listing of what might help. But obviously males as individuals and organized groups have a variety of view points on feminism and it's unlikely readers will just follow see alsos all over town to figure out where they are. My question is: Where is Women and feminism? Need it for the same reasons. CarolMooreDC 23:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where is "[Men|Women] and *" for any other topic in Wikipedia? I expect that no other such article exists. "Men" is an absurdly broad category that immediately begs the question "Which men?" Would any of these articles make sense? Men and Racism, Men and Communism, Men and Judaism, Women and Atheism, Women and Postmodernism? The very title of the article presupposes an ability to summarize reactions of fully one half of the world's population throughout human history -- at which point the whole introduction to the article would need to clarify what the article is really about (if we hope to have it even be remotely encyclopedic.) If the article were 1000's of pages long it would by hopelessly incomplete. Something like "USA Men and Feminism" might work since this title limits itself to discussing the reactions of "American men" and scopes itself to only the men who lived in America during the span of history that the USA has existed and only those forms of Feminism that existed in America during that time span.--Cybermud (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant amount of secondary source coverage on this topic. — Cirt (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentActually there's not. Sure there are books, chapters, articles and discussions that may use the title "Men and Feminism" or something similar, but these are not encyclopedic articles that can stand on their own and, I maintain, they never will be. The fallacy here is caused by the fact that such secondary content is implicitly scoped towards its target demographic. A historical record of American "3rd Wave Feminism" may very well include an account of "Men's reaction" but such a title presupposes that the readers have the appropriate context to understand we are not talking about the reactions of male African Pygmies in the 1900s but rather that of wealthy, white, heterosexual, christian men in 20th century America. Having content that talks about very specific groups of men doesn't really talk about "men" as a holistic group in any way, shape or form. Indeed a core tenet of many flavors of feminism is that sex and gender are socially constructed so, according to such theories, there is no essential "reaction" that could ever be found or generalized across historical, cultural, geographic, religious, sexual and socioeconomic boundaries. Which is not to even begin to discuss that feminism itself comes in thousands of flavors... some of them contradictory (eg gender/radical/seperatist vs equity feminism.)--Cybermud (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]