Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. There's nothing to merge. Proto::type 11:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research Steve 03:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-encyclopedic essay. hateless 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could stand up for an article along the lines of Notable Women in Physics - but this seems to read like a lifted web or print article related to the "list of 83 women". Maybe some of this could be fitted into sexism maybe in relation to gender bias in the workplace or in career choice. Robovski 04:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unencyclopedic, original research. This is not an article, rather, it reads like a school report. Wavy G 04:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article is sourced (though poorly cited) from source that deal with the exact subject matter. To suggest the article is unencyclopaedic is farcicle, and to suggest that it's OR is transparently false. Sure, the article needs style improvement, but needs style improvement is hardly a criterion for deletion. It's a criterion for improvement. WilyD 14:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: From the tagged version of the article: "The answer, in the lack of scientific evidence of cognitive differences, convincingly lies..." That, my "farcicle" friend, is a thesis, a no-no in this encyclopedia. You may have faith that an essay can be merely massaged back into an acceptable NPOV article, but I don't. hateless 21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article no longer says that - suggesting we delete articles based on what they used to say is pretty rediculous. WilyD 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A essay was written to support one conclusion. It's supports, structure, tone, etc. is all used to support that one conclusion. I am not convinced you can just tweak one aspect of this article, its tone, and can confidently say its no longer an essay. Its a cosmetic cover-up, and frankly, you're being ridiculous if you can't see it needs to be totally rewritten. Perhaps you would want to keep the article intact and replace its foundation from underneath it, that's your opinion. My opinion is to demolish the article first before rebuilding. Unless of course, you still deny it's an essay, which would be an actual farce. hateless 23:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It really isn't. Have you read the most recent version of the article? The issue of women in physics being underrepresented is one that's studied, talked about, whatever. See: [1] [2] for instance. It's clear that the original writer of the article let their own opinions slip in, but the article is no longer an essay, nor does it really flawlessly represent a neutral point of view (though it probably does as well as an average article). But the problems with it don't mandate deletion, but improvement. They're not that severe. The foundations are fine, just the paint needed to go. Which it already has. The deletion policy specifically lists Article is biased or has lots of POV as a Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. The point is clear: There's no reason to delete the article. There's no rational for deleting the article. It deals with a verifiable, encyclopaedic subject in an incomplete but reasonable way. Sure, it needs expansion, but the response to an article that needs to be expanded is not to delete it but to expand it. WilyD 23:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced. I've read the article as it was, as it is, and in my opinion (if you choose to accept it or not) the effort to save it is foolish. The topic is better served as a section of Women in science. hateless 23:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want to delete the article for reasons wholly unrelated to the article? That's a pretty weak argument, as far as I can see. WilyD 01:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced. I've read the article as it was, as it is, and in my opinion (if you choose to accept it or not) the effort to save it is foolish. The topic is better served as a section of Women in science. hateless 23:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It really isn't. Have you read the most recent version of the article? The issue of women in physics being underrepresented is one that's studied, talked about, whatever. See: [1] [2] for instance. It's clear that the original writer of the article let their own opinions slip in, but the article is no longer an essay, nor does it really flawlessly represent a neutral point of view (though it probably does as well as an average article). But the problems with it don't mandate deletion, but improvement. They're not that severe. The foundations are fine, just the paint needed to go. Which it already has. The deletion policy specifically lists Article is biased or has lots of POV as a Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. The point is clear: There's no reason to delete the article. There's no rational for deleting the article. It deals with a verifiable, encyclopaedic subject in an incomplete but reasonable way. Sure, it needs expansion, but the response to an article that needs to be expanded is not to delete it but to expand it. WilyD 23:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A essay was written to support one conclusion. It's supports, structure, tone, etc. is all used to support that one conclusion. I am not convinced you can just tweak one aspect of this article, its tone, and can confidently say its no longer an essay. Its a cosmetic cover-up, and frankly, you're being ridiculous if you can't see it needs to be totally rewritten. Perhaps you would want to keep the article intact and replace its foundation from underneath it, that's your opinion. My opinion is to demolish the article first before rebuilding. Unless of course, you still deny it's an essay, which would be an actual farce. hateless 23:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article no longer says that - suggesting we delete articles based on what they used to say is pretty rediculous. WilyD 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: From the tagged version of the article: "The answer, in the lack of scientific evidence of cognitive differences, convincingly lies..." That, my "farcicle" friend, is a thesis, a no-no in this encyclopedia. You may have faith that an essay can be merely massaged back into an acceptable NPOV article, but I don't. hateless 21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The fact that some people would like to dump this entry is an example of the gender bias that this entry illustrates. November7 16:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's probably not fair - they're likely just unaware that it is an issue of significant interest and study. I've been to a talk on the issue of Women in Astronomy, but that's probably the exception, not the rule. WilyD 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes,of course. Being unaware that you are sexist excuses all. November7 22:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this comment makes sense. Perhaps you would care to elaborate? WilyD 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Ever heard of good faith? I don't like the assertion that I'm sexist because I reccommend the deletion of a poorly written article. The subject of gender bias itself is notable (and is a re-direct to sexism) but this article isn't purporting to be about that subject but rather doesn't seem to go anywhere. The last paragraph reads more like a press release pointing to some information. Re-write to something useful and I'll be happy to change my opinion. Robovski 23:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The gender ratios of women in physics are a notable and well-documented subject; however, this article is badly written and goes nowhere as it stands. To counter a rational argument for deletion with sniping and personal attacks is an indication of the same mindset that rejects women from physics based on emotion and image, rather than considering fairly their merits. My vote below is to merge this article with Women in science and actually say something coherent about the content of the recent publications referenced in the article. --A woman in physics, HEL 19:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes,of course. Being unaware that you are sexist excuses all. November7 22:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's probably not fair - they're likely just unaware that it is an issue of significant interest and study. I've been to a talk on the issue of Women in Astronomy, but that's probably the exception, not the rule. WilyD 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Women in science - Stammer 16:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment an AfD ought to be a discussion about deleting the page rather than the content. If the page is a "non-encyclopedic essay" then it can be improved and there is no fundamental problem with the page so it shouldn't be deleted unless it fails to improve --Mike 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. The article's non-neutrality is a major issue, however I do not think it immediately fits into an AfD article.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a sufficient range of sources to hand for a subject, neutrality is mainly a cleanup issue. The cases where non-neutrality is a deletion issue are usually when the topic itself is inherently non-neutral. Even then, renaming and refactoring into a neutral topic can sometimes be a way to solve the problem. Uncle G 01:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotion hidden behind generic phrase. Pavel Vozenilek 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Women in science, and rewrite to bring it up to the quality and NPOV-ness needed. HEL 19:33, 12 November 2006 (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.