Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender-blind

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. Per consensus that sufficient sources exist. There was only one statement for a rename so I haven't implemented that, but editors are free to move in the normal fashion (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This looks like WP:OR, or entirely made up. The article cites no reliable sources to support its contention that there is such a thing as "gender-blindness" in the sense of a movement or notion to disregard gender altogether. When the term is used in sources, it seems to mean different things, e.g., gender-blind casting (selecting actors without regard to gender), which isn't what this article describes. Sandstein 16:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this has been around for 12 years and is more relevant than ever. It's not so terrible, although it could use many hands to update it, add points of view, and add citations. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename as Gender blindness per WP:NOUN. Sources exist that seem to examine the subject in some depth (GBooks, Scholar), so WP:GNG appears to be met. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sangdeboeuf: Can you cite one of these sources? I see a lot of mentions of the topic, but no clear definition or analysis, and the word seems to be used in several different senses and contexts. Sandstein 06:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many of these sources are explicitly about "gender blindness". The term is used in different contexts, true, which I think makes it suitable for a broad-concept article. The common theme in sources I've looked at seems to be that gender blindness is the attitude that gender no longer matters (like color blindness is to race) or that ignoring gender altogether is preferable.
    Some examples: "Gender-blindness is grounded in the Platonian ideal that sex is the difference that makes no difference"; "First wave feminism ... tended to be gender-blind in the sense that it wished to claim equality between the sexes and to subsume their differences under a common 'humanity.'"; "Organizational theory I have argued, is gender-blind ... The gendered nature of organizational life is generally ignored, and there is no recognition that women's work experiences may be different to that of men's"; "Two popular tactics are gender blindness and color blindness—that is, pretending to be blind to gender and to race"; "The widespread suggestion that mainstream management theory ... fails to recognise the relationship between management and gender, is known as 'gender blindness'"; "the collective mechanisms through which gender is rendered implicit and depicted as irrelevant i.e. the rationales and ways of thinking which constitute gender blindness". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Refs here, here, and here. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It reads like a low-quality high school essay and is poorly sourced. Trillfendi (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable topic, article is not in bad shape enough to be draftified I feel. It has a lead section and a clearly defined topic. But it is in need of serious attention and expansion.★Trekker (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs some TLC but nominating it for deletion feels like unwarranted issue pushing. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2019 (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.