Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achieving sex integration

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) 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achieving sex integration[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS//WP:ESSAY. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep each reference discusses sex integration and its effects and counters against effects. A simple search on Google Scholar using "sex integration" and "achieving" brings up similar and some of the references. "Sex equality" is a similar term though a possible goal of sex integration. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic is completely absent from reliable sources. Article tone is activist in nature, not neutral, a violation of WP:NPOV. This essay should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research with neutrality and stylistic issues.

Moving the minority sex or completely excluded sex into a social endeavor, activity, or society may succeed in achieving sex integration. In a workplace environment promoting investment in sex-neutral skills is a mechanism that may produce sex integration. Attributing relative meaning to gender or sex may transcend a belief in the reality of gender or sex so as to reduce sex segregation and dominance by exclusively males or females.

If you can explain in English what that last sentence means, you are cleverer than me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

continuing my 'Keep' vote above The article and its references are appropriately included and are reliable authorities. The page is NPOV as it is about 'achieving sex integration'. The Google Scholar search I mentioned demonstrates the page is neither 'Original research' nor a 'Synthesis' as banned by Wikipedia. Oh, and the meaning of the last sentence is simple: using sex and gender for other than biological sex differences are generally irrelevant for most endeavors. It's from the authority referenced. Marshallsumter (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a general rule, please write in simple English when you compose text for Wikipedia. Do not obfuscate a subject, making it harder to understand than it is. If it is actually hard to understand, then complexity in the explanation can be supported. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually you are incorrect. There is a 'Simple English' Wikipedia. Hardness or easiness to understand is often in the mind of the reader. That's the beauty of the 'Discussion' page. Readers can say that something doesn't make sense to them. If you're having trouble that's the place to go. Not here. Just a suggestion. Marshallsumter (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have already swerved from this specific deletion discussion, but I feel that one clarification is in order: I was saying that you have used obfuscating English in this article, and I have seen the same in your other writings. I was asking you not to employ obfuscation in the future. It does not serve the reader. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

continuing my 'Keep' vote above The problem is not with the wording such as "Attributing relative meaning to gender or sex may transcend a belief in the reality of gender or sex so as to reduce sex segregation and dominance by exclusively males or females." but with the meaning. This phrase is a paraphrase, very close to the statement made by the author of the article from which it came. Neither I nor the author is concealing meaning, making communication confusing, ambiguous, or difficult to interpret. The author discusses Buddhism and the relative meaning of sex or gender. May I suggest that you and User:Ihcoyc check out the reference instead. Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

continuing my 'Keep' vote above I've added information to the 'Achieving sex integration' page that should demonstrate it is not synthesis or essay but an encyclopedic page on 'Achieving sex integration'. It is not about what is sex integration but about causes and in some cases deliberate implementation of sex integration. The concern that the topic is absent from reliable sources should be quelled by the section 'Sex integration or sanitation'. The additional sections should also demonstrate the topic is not original research but an encyclopedic article about an area of ongoing social change or experimentation. I do not believe the POV comment is appropriate or correct. Ditto stylistic issues. While some may believe that religions deal in obfuscation, I believe they fulfill as best they can a real need. I hope this helps additional readers and any admin that stops by to hopefully confirm that the page should NOT be deleted. Marshallsumter (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlike in the other AfDs for articles by this user, there actually is a topic here, but a) it's redundant to Sex integration (integration is the state of being integrated, but also the process of achieving that state) and b) it's an unsalvageable mess. Blow it up and get some other users down to Sex integration to knock that article into shape. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

continuing my 'Keep' vote above Thank you for acknowledging that Achieving sex integration is a topic. If it takes a quote from an author who differentiates Sex integration from Achieving sex integration to demonstrate that fact I am happy to oblige. Marshallsumter (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the article's creation on 17 April 2010, nine editors and bots have contributed to the page. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only person who has touched it since it was nominated for deletion is you, and you have not materially improved it, not enough for me to change my stance from delete. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for noticing that although more than a dozen authors have discussed achieving sex integration, none of the above 'Delete'rs, has made any effort to edit at all or constructively even though the page meets Wikipedia's Notability criteria. May I suggest that you check 'Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines' rather than resorting to 'Deletion' first. Marshallsumter (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge worthwhile content to Sex integration (assuming the latter article is felt to be viable). I cannot see that we need both articles. 86.180.160.89 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide - even for social topics like sex integration. It is uncommon to have a verb in the article's title (unless the verb is part of a proper noun) because the "how to", to the extent it is encyclopedic, should usually be part of that title's subject article (in this case sex integration). In this case sex integration is the subject and relevant content from this article should be added there. I am not supporting a merge, because this article's content is to scattered to simply incorporate it into the subject article, but (in plain English) the useful content from here should be in there. Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:36, 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. "Achieving" could go before any concept at all & form a similar article. It's just an excuse for writing an essay 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.