Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Structuralist Feminism

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 Keep after removal of most of the original research. AfD is technically moot since the actual nominated title is now a redirect. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French Structuralist Feminism

The article is vague and does not address the topic in an encyclopediac manner. It may also be a copy-vio too. 2 earlier CSDs and a PROD have been removed by the editor without any reason after warnings on his/her talk page too. Prashanthns (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Large portions of it are cut-paste jobs from the links at the bottom of the article, like the section terms which is from here. All the other sections appear judgemental of books and opinions, and read like book reviews. Prashanthns (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks much better now. The previous version looked so unencyclopediac and like I said, several parts were cut-pastes. After re-write, I vote Keep. I am sure it could be made more readable in due course for a general reader. Prashanthns (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced; needs cleanup, but it's salvageable. I see a contested PROD, but no removed CSDs. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article with same content was speedy deleted French Structural Feminism. I confused this with that. There were two CSD removals on that article before it was removed. Prashanthns (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see, though that article was CSDed G7 (author requesting deletion). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly, and without prejudice. The current article may be borderline original research; at minimum, it reads that way, and it isn't instantly obvious how the references (added as a string of external links on the bottom of the page) support the assertions in the article. I must once again insist that words should carry meaning or be edited out. I'd have a big problem with prose like:
... looks to see if a literary work has successfully used the process of mimesis on the image of the female. If successful, then a new image of a woman has been created by a woman for a woman.
if it turned up in an article about some claimed business method. This similarly seems to lack concision and clarity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definately a worthy subject for an article. By definition quite a thorny subject. Flutterdance (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The work of Cixous, Irigaray and Kristeva is an important subsection of structuralist and feminist theory, and forms a coherent body (an article can exist on their collective work without OR). Needs some cleanup, but no terrible issues with the article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't doubt that it is. This nevertheless reads like original research. Ordinarily, I'd say it was a candidate to be stubbed. But how do you rewrite stuff like literary work has successfully used the process of mimesis on the image of the female in English? It seems to me to mean something like "successfully write female characters that seem like actual women," but it's the sort of thing you hesitate to translate. I suspect that writers who go to Cixous, Irigaray, and Kristeva hoping for tips to improve their characterization will leave empty-handed.
There's a passage in one of Steven Pinker's books that says, essentially, that unintelligibility can enhance the transmission of successful memes. Unintelligibility fortifies a text against change through restatement: it must be reproduced verbatim if it is reproduced at all.
This means that we have three options here: original research, copyright violation, or patent nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I hear what you're saying, I don't think it's that bad. I think the problem is that the article restates the theory, rather than being about the theory, which is what an encyclopedia article should be. Normally, I'd just go ahead and fix it, but I'm stumped on where to start. I think stubbiness will have to be the way ahead from here. Incidentally, I'd like to retitle the article French Feminist Structuralism, but that can wait. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - massively cut down. There wasn't any real way to deal with the previous material, without a rebuild from the ground. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps rewriting it in simple, clear, and understandable English would be missing the point? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (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.