Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The male gaze

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. Given that multiple sources were added subsequent to the last comment here, most "delete" opinions appear to be superseded. However, contributors note an overlap with Gaze#The "male gaze" in feminist theory, which should be editorially remedied.  Sandstein  08:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The male gaze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Neologism with no sources showing importance beyond usage sourced to one paper from the inventor of the neologism. SPACKlick (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is better covered in Gaze#The_.22male_gaze.22_in_feminist_theory. However, the nom would do better to follow the recommendations of WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. This topic is a fairly central concept in feminist philosophy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You presume I didn't. The term is heavily used. That doesn't mean discussion of the content of the term merits and article. I didn't find significant papers ABOUT the male gaze in a search of either psychological or sociological journals. Although I found plenty using the term. SPACKlick (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   22:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (changed) per sources found on JSTOR below. Cleanup is needed however, and this article needs more than a single paper by the term's inventor as a source. Gaze also needs to trim the male gaze section as it is completely undue within that article. ― Padenton|✉   14:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Already explained thoroughly in the section mentioned by Sammy1339. Though I would also shorten that section to about a paragraph, maybe two, as it's essentially discussing the same thing as the main subject of Gaze. ― Padenton|✉   23:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There was some talk on another page about merging it, but it is definitely a neologism, so we shouldn't have it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The term which was coined in 1975 has since entered pretty much all fields of (social) study including but not limited to film studies, psychology, communications studies, sociology etc. It is a much researched academic concept, the first page of Google Scholar results shows that a very diverse set of academic disciplines deals with the male gaze, papers on the male gaze are published in academic journals such as Representations, Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, Computers and Composition, Consumption, Markets and Culture, and many more. The subject itself is clearly notable and should have its own page. Unfortunately, the article is in a frightful state at the moment but that's not a reason for deletion. --SonicY (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sonicyouth86: Did you look at the above votes? --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I too read Mulvey's work while in grad school: it is or was influential, and is well-covered at Gaze#The_.22male_gaze.22_in_feminist_theory as well as in Mulvey's bio article. I don't understand why it wasn't just redirected as tagged and why it's here at Afd. No one on the talk page argued in favour of keeping it as a standalone article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Sonicyouth86: Since you're the only one who's voted keep, would you object to a redirect per Shawn in Montreal's comment? --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than enough scholarly research on the male gaze to warrant a separate article. It isn't just concept in feminist theory, it has become a concept used in most academic disciplines. Take media studies, for example. You'll have difficulty finding a study on spectatorship in cinema, music videos, advertisement etc. that does not discuss the male gaze. At the same time, I understand why other editors voted delete. The current article and the section in the overview article give the wrong impression that it's this barely significant theory that's restricted to feminist studies. As I said, the article is in very bad shape and, unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to expand it and summarize the wealth of research dealing with the male gaze. --SonicY (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Either Redirect to Gaze#The "male gaze" in feminist theory where it can remain in context to the rest of the article, OR Keep per multiple unused sources available and add those sources under WP:NRVE. I do agree that a redirect could have been done with no need for an AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
• Keep or merge. Is the nominator trying to make a joke that just isn't landing? This is a really big feminist + media studies concept, discussed in tons of sources, if they'd just bothered to actually look for sources (some of which are already cited in Gaze). It seems unintuitive to split this in a way that keeps theories influenced by it with it (imperial gaze - Kaplan cites Mulvey) while keeping what seem like precursors separate (Sartre and Foucault seem relevant, but Mulvey doesn't actually cite them in the influential essay), so I am indifferent to a keep or a merge, I think. If it's kept, re-title for MOS, no "the." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per rationale of Sonicyouth86, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. it is a notable concept. Spumuq (talq) 13:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We'll be seen as male chauvinist pigs if we delete it. Biscuittin (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I typed "male gaze" into JSTOR and there were countless journal entries about this concept:[1]. The male gaze clearly meets notability requirements and there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't have a stand-alone article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want this query instead [2] but point made. I've changed my vote above. ― Padenton|✉   04:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia has very low inclusion criteria and no attempt is being made here to meet them. This topic may be notable but until and unless this article is developed to cite 2-3 sources on this topic, then this concept should not exist as a Wikipedia article. Anyone who feels strongly enough to vote keep should also cite 2-3 sources which feature the subject of this article as the subject of the source. Right now this article cites one source and from the context of the wiki article as it is now, it is not clear to me that the source cited is about the subject of the article. The content goes in many directions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2015 (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.