Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male Chauvinism in Law Firm Management

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. —Kurykh 03:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Male Chauvinism in Law Firm Management

While I believe the article deals with an important issue that should be on wiki, as the article is written, it is nothing more than an essay. What do others think? Postcard Cathy 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" It is well-referenced, pointing to other articles that use stats to prove the point, and it is an important issue. Women lawyers still don't get the "better half" of a double-standard that is eroding, but still exists in the profession. Mandsford 18:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for underlying POV and OR but Merge any relevant data to Male-female income disparity in the United States. I respect the research and citation done on this article but the underlying problem, from wikipedia's standpoint, is that it draws firm conclusions and meaning from that research.

- The title itself highlights that this is the problem. Personally I happen to agree that "Male Chauvinism" is the predominant reason for income disparity in America...but I can't prove that across the board, across all men and women, across all law firms in America, across all instances.

- The determination of an all-pervasive cause (particularly a negative one that baldly adds elements of guilt and negative accusation) to an economic trend is nearly the definition of original research.

- The language used throughout the article continues this OR trend: "Many of these departures are the result of the issues mentioned above...", "The “boys club” still exists after work...", "Law firms should look to the example set by the accounting profession for...". Result of? Boy's Club? "Should"??? There is no objective reality or moral element to Wikipedia, there is only data and presentation.

I personally think income disparity is an extremely important problem in the United States, I applaud the author's ethics in wishing to address that problem to a wide audience. But in this form, Wikipedia is not the most appropriate forum to do so. -Markeer 20:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, conclusory OR and POV essay that cherry-picks citations. Does any professional in the social sciences still say "male chauvinism"? I wonder. There certainly are disparities in income, in advancement, in assignments, but they are not all attributable to management (for example, women who take time off to have/raise children account for a good chunk of the measurable income disparities). Surely, then, there are rebuttals and other factors which are not in this article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any way to write a neutral article under that heading. - Richfife 22:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete — An essay presenting a particular viewpoint is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Even if it is referenced. Cedars 05:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -I've taught this stuff (Law Office Management to paralegals), and I am a male attorney, so my own COI won't allow me to vote. It is certainly a notable issues, but wow, it's POV. Bearian 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Markeer, gender inequality in the work place is a problem but writing Wikipedia articles like this isn't going to solve it. The article is violating WP:SYNT because it is synthesizing info into an essay form. It is also in breach of WP:OR and NPOV. Again I agree with Markeer that any relevant & neutral info should be merged into Male-female income disparity in the United States or Gender inequality. As it stands the article is a journalistc piece not an encyclopedic entry--Cailil ^talk 09:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge data as per Markeer above and delete the article. CaveatLector^Talk 10:12, 6 July 2007 (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.