- (formerly Women's superiority)
- Gynocracy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- Women's superiority (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I request we overturn, i.e., reverse the deletion. The rationale for deletion was erroneous. What the debate showed was evolution of the article to address concerns. This was taking time because of conflicts among editors other than myself: a desire for a clearer scoping required a more explicit lede but that was considered synthesis by other editors. But that could likely have been resolved if people suggested appropriate lede language or if I continued developing the lede and posted it, as I was already doing.
When the nominator accused me of misrepresenting her pre-AfD advice, that struck at the article's core credibility, too, so I copied her pre-AfD texts into the AfD page and refuted with quotes and particulars, raising new points. The closing admin edit-summarized with TLDR and deleted the article. TLDR meant misinterpreting the debate.
Votes were 5–1 for deleting and 1 to split and move plus my vote to keep. The core issue was whether the article's topical range was too disparate for one article. A solution offered was that I get a source(s) that tie all the other major secondary sources together. (I searched for such secondary-secondary sources, did not find one, and will be glad to add it if one turns up.) I don't think there was consensus to require secondary sourcing of secondary sources.
I proposed dividing the article into new articles on narrower subjects, one narrow subject per article, but that was rejected.
None of the standard reasons for deletion were present.
Opposition because the article's topic is controversial—which it definitely is—was, I thought, being resolved toward keeping with respect to that ground. I thought it had been.
Another editor and I apparently agreed on a renaming, I notified and renamed with an admin's help, and I re-edited the lede, but the closer did not comment on any of that. The closer's rationale was simply "a rough consensus ... for the reasons identified by the other participants". The deletion stopped the progress in editing to achieve consensus.
A couple of us were negotiating to resolve what would help, and I was editing. Most editors did not respond.
When an editor is accused, applying TLDR turns an erroneous accusation unanswerable, thus rendering a charge always right and a reply always wrong.
I asked the closer to reconsider and undelete or tell me about his concerns but he said simply that "[t]he deletion ... was based on the result of the discussion." Since some of the opposition was on invalid grounds for deletion (such as notability in the face of numerous third-party sources) and the closer declined to read and take into consideration the article creator's (my) last response, which answered a key accusation, the closer's decision was incorrectly interpretive of the debate.
I would like discussion to continue with a view to adding content of the sort editors are saying is absent. Keeping content open to sunlight is the better solution. I have been answering critiques on this article and elsewhere and looking for workable compromises. I would like to continue that practice, as it strengthens readers' ability to find literature backing up topics.
I request undeletion.
If that's not feasible, I request userfying the article, its talk page, and (if possible) both histories, so other editors can add sources. I can work alone, but I don't want to exclude other editors who have something to contribute, and some do.
Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected a link: 09:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)) (Clarified the section title (but not the DRV template, not knowing how) to show the deleted article's old title: 09:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)) (Copied the DRV template and edited it as a possible solution: 09:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)) (Corrected formatting of the subsubsection title by moving the addition to the next line, to ensure compatibility with an expected automatically-generated link: 09:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Endorse, closure was in line with consensus. Deletion review is not a place to raise a disagreement about a deletion debate outcome for reasons previously presented (or in more colloquial terms, DRV is not AFD round 2). Stifle (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With my deletion reviewer hat on, I would agree with Stifle, but I would like to raise two additional points:- First, from a content editor's viewpoint rather than a deletion reviewer's, this title should surely at minimum be a redirect to matriarchy; and second, I would applaud the nominator's courteous request on the closer's talk page, and deplore the response he received. I would have hoped for an attempt at good faith reasoned discussion there.—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I explained that the close was not based on my own opinion of the article, but rather my interpretation of what the consensus of the debate was. I'd like to know what is deplorable about that, since that is what closers are supposed to do and I did not wish to re-run the AFD on my talk page. I kept my remarks brief and to the point but I was not rude. I would like to specifically state here that although I mentioned TLDR in an edit summary [1] when adding the
{{closing}} tag, I read every last word that was present on the page at that time. I was halfway through reading it when I realized it was so long that another admin and I might unwittingly be working on a close at the same time. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you weren't rude, but what I see on your talk page is a courteous request that you explain the reasons for your decision, which you did not provide. I then see a courteous request that you reconsider, which you refused without explanation. A pointer to the discussion isn't an explanation of why that discussion led to that result, you see.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seemed clear to me, as it apparently does to you as well, that the consensus of the debate was to delete the article. I anticipated but ultimately rejected the notion that a long-winded debate requires a similarly long-winded rationale from the closer. I could have explained it at length, but it would have been me trying to find a fancy way to say that the arguments to delete were more valid under our policies than the arguments to keep. I always add a detailed rationale if it took a lot of interpreting on my part to come to a decision. It took a lot of reading to close this debate, but actually determining what the consensus was once I had done all the reading was easy. This request you refer to asked me to explain what I thought was wrong with the article, why I felt it should be deleted. Courteous, yes, but wrong-headed. As you know, that's not how it works, and hence my reply indicating as much. As I said, I did not wish to re-run the AFD on my talk page, and I feel like that is what I was being asked to do. That's not what my talk page or DRV is for. I also reject the notion that the recent changes to the article were helping move the debate towards a "keep" result. That is not reflected in the content of the debate, or i would have relisted it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm getting at with this is FairProcess. In other words, it's not enough that we do the right thing: we must be seen to do the right thing. The nominator here has heard that the consensus was "delete", but he hasn't heard why a close reading of that debate leads to a "delete" outcome, and we can see that it's not obvious to him. As a good faith user he has a right to an explanation. I'll try to provide one below.
Reasons put forward to delete are "notability" (Jacque Hammer's argument), "synthesis" (Edison's argument supported by PhilBridger) and "original research" (Wickedjacob's argument). The notability challenge fails straight off the bat, because there are sources about the concept, even if a google search for "women's superiority" didn't turn up much. The synthesis and original research challenges, however, are substantial. Nick Levinson and Biophys make creditable attempts to address them, but their efforts don't convince subsequent debate participants (hence it's right to say the consensus was "delete") and the fact remains that they have used disparate sources to form an article which doesn't quite reach the same conclusions that the sources do (hence the weight of the argument also belongs with the WP:SYN side.) I want to emphasize that while the part of my mind that's in deletion review mode thinks "endorse" is right based on the debate, the content writer part of my mind thinks that there's a lot of this material that's solid, academically-supported stuff that belongs on Wikipedia in some form. I also think our current combination of matriarchy, history of feminism, feminist history and women's history—while the articles are individually okay—form a confusing mess when taken together, and they ought to employ some of the sources Nick Levinson wanted to use in gynocracy. Speaking as an editor rather than a deletion reviewer, I think our present coverage of the concept would ideally be rationalised and enhanced from Nick Levinson's work.—S Marshall T/C 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Later) I ought to have added that Nick Levinson's request for userfication is reasonable and in my opinion should be granted. Sorry for forgetting that.—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On whether "recent changes to the article were helping move the debate towards a "keep" result .... [per] the content of the debate", I based my sense of that on at least two parts of the AfD debate:
- Editor Kaldari wrote, "Merge 1st half with Separatist feminism, merge 2nd half with Matriarchy. Sound reasonable?" (Dec. 30, 9:30p UTC, debolded.) We intensely debated that and then s/he wrote, "If you want to have an article about Women's sovereignty or Gynocracy, that sounds like a reasonable idea to me." (Jan. 1, 8:48p UTC.) S/he retained some concerns such as about the lede, but not in contradiction to their statement, and I was rewriting the lede to address the issues, so, subject to their consideration of my subsequent edits, I thought we were moving toward consensus on that point. To keep the process transparent, I said so, when I wrote, "Maybe we have a solution, then. I'll move the whole thing to Gynocracy soon, absent an interim objection." and "I'll wait a bit to see if there's comment on Gynocracy as a new title, before implementing a move. Thanks." (both Jan. 2, 2:38a UTC) and "Thank you for the research. It looks like Gynocracy is probably the title, then." (2:52a UTC). No one objected and an admin did the renaming.
- The other was that editor Phil Bridger wrote, "the article itself doesn't explain what its scope is intended to be" and "[u]nless we get a clear explanation of what information this article is supposed to provide to the reader in addition to any of our other articles about feminism then this has to be a delete" (Dec. 27, 10:15p UTC, debolded). In response, I edited the lede, said so, and didn't hear back.
- I hope I didn't misunderstand. I assumed that a debate meant a back-and-forth, so that responding with new ways of getting to consensus and not hearing back meant at least an abstaining on point.
- Question: If the problem is boiling down to synthesis because of disparateness, would it be acceptable to divide the article into separate articles? I can do that with userfication. If dividing is a bad idea, may I ask why or is there a policy or guideline I can read that's against dividing?
- Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't a rule against splitting an article into smaller articles, providing each individual article is encyclopaedic. Like Kaldari, I think that some of what you wrote belongs within existing articles, and I don't think it's necessary to start a large number of new ones.—S Marshall T/C 10:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be several, not a large number, but if they're too many concepts for one article, I wonder if they'd all be accepted into the existing matriarchy article. None of them are about separatist feminism, so none would fit there. The other proposal was to add them to articles about particular books or particular authors, one each, but many WP articles are topical and that would be lost. Is putting them all within the Matriarchy article, with an explanation of how they're not strictly matriarchal, acceptable? Nick Levinson (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I thought I'd be accused of doing an end-run around deletion if I put that much of the deleted content into one other article, so I asked here. I have also recently posted to the talk pages of matriarchy, separatist feminism, and the WikiProjects for feminism and gender studies (the last one on your suggestion). The Gynocentrism stub would require a lot more content (and a lot more research for sources) plus what was deleted of mine, as gynocentrism includes, for example, gynocentrrism within academia, science, macroeconomics, thealogy, and so on, and that would probably exceed the length limit on articles, bringing us back to creating subarticles, coming back to the deletion of Gynocracy. It helps to understand how editors who try to pare unwanted articles from Wikipedia would respond to these alternatives. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Userfication, please? While the DRV is pending, if an admin could please userfy the Gynocracy article, Talk:Gynocracy, and the two histories, that would ease discussion for the matriarchy and separatist feminism pages. We've already begun dialogues, and an editor there had not seen this article. Userfying would save me hours of reconstruction and I don't have enough information with which to reconstruct histories myself. And if a timely response to anything is needed here, userfying would speed that up, too. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC) (Repunctuated: 13:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Endorse. I can't see anything wrong with the close - consensus was pretty clear cut. I was moderately interested in seeing if the closing admin had actually been rude or 'deplorable' but even that isn't the case. Pretty boring really. The day I can't be courteous and clinically to the point is the day I stop editing. Szzuk (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse AfD close and userify - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. In addition, the proposed approach brings up significanty scope and synthesis problems, matriarchy is the dominant term since 1880,[2] gynecocracy is a much better title choice than gynocracy,[3] but matriarchy post 1880 still dominates.[4]. In general, the proposal seems to be a not-well-thought out effot that will lead to significant issues, including Wikipedia promotion of a neologism by a few selected book authors. Review by DRV of a user space draft is the way to go on this one.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- userify. the deleted content was written by Nick Levinson (talk · contribs) and was a blatant content fork of matriarchy. It was basically an extensive quotefarm about radical feminist calls for women's rule. You can undelete-userify it for the edit history, but it doesn't change the fact that the creation of the content fork was abusive. Nobody can stop Nick from compiling material on the topic in his userspace, in the sense of a sandbox or workpage, but I am concerned that this user apparently doesn't appreciate that his article was deleted not because it was "controversial" but because of reasons of WP:CFORK, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. As was stated on the original AfD, "It seems like an annotated reading list for a feminist studies seminar, rather than an encyclopedia article". Userify as potentially valid raw material for contributions to articles on radical feminism, but it doesn't make sense to undelete it with the status of an encyclopedia article. --dab (𒁳) 07:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
