Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexism in the family

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The result was Nominator withdrawn under WP:WITHDRAWN by Buggie111 (talk · contribs). Seems this nomination was done without knowledge that it was part of one of our outreach programs. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism in the family

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

Reads like an essay, provides nothing that differs it from Sexism. Buggie111 (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge - The article appears to be well-sourced, and seems to be a reasonable topic fork. It is written in an essay-like fashion, but is probably salvageable. It might best be merged with the sexism article. - Mr X 05:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/userfy. I agree that the topic of sexism and gender roles within the family has merit as an encyclopedic article. HOWEVER what we have here is an article that is unusable as a whole and in order to make it something that can be kept, someone would have to rewrite it entirely. If someone savvy with the subject matter can do a complete and total overhaul of the article, it'd be keepable. It just isn't there now and it'd have to be completely nuked in order to re-write it, essentially meaning that nothing in here (other than the sources) would be kept. That's why I'm stating userfy by an author who can do this. If they can do this before the week's end, then by all means- keep. But if not, there's very little here to merge other than sources and very basic ideas because this is essentially someone's personal research paper. It's not very neutrally written, it's not really in an encyclopedic format, and the focus tends to be a little all over the place. There are good points here, but it needs a lot of work to meet Wikipedia guidelines, hence the userfication since the author would have to ensure that this is no just a restating of content already in the sexism article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this needs a fundamental rewrite to remove the essay-like tone, but it seems like a completely reasonable topic (though it would be nice to find a cleaner name). The Disney princess section may constitute undue coverage as well. I would be ok with a merge to Sexism, except that that article is already long enough to make the article after merging too bulky. VQuakr (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup. Killer Chihuahua 10:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup. This article was written by students working with the Wikipedia Education Program, and it should be considered for a rewrite.

Asdimd (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't see that. Sorry, withdraw nomination. Buggie111 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2012 (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.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Oklahoma State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]