Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls in computer science

: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. Xclamation point 00:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

=[[Girls in computer science]]=

:{{la|Girls in computer science}} ([{{fullurl:Girls in computer science|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls in computer science}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This appears to be an essay rather than an encyclopedia article, and it contains a lot of original research. Also, its topic is redundant, as it covers the same area as Women in computing. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 18:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete: Per nom. Also "girls" in the title??? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is the word that people sometimes use. Rice University uses it in discussing how to interest girls in computer science in [http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=7548&SnlD=802939072 this article], for example. Uncle G (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • i recommend deletion. possibly some good references, but not an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - If not for the following reason I might have to reconsider, but the topic is redundant as it's basically the same topic as Women in computing. Jd027 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • … which we solve via article merger, not deletion. When you see duplicate articles by alternative titles, Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is the place to go, not AFD. Uncle G (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • How do we solve "redundancy" by merging? Ryan4314 (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it not obvious? It's very simple. Merge two redundant articles. Get one article as the end result. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging. Uncle G (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Redundancy means the information is duplicated in the other article. It already exists, therefore there is nothing to "merge". Look up "redundant" in a dictionary, very simple. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That, were it true, would just make step #2 of the article merger process a short one, not affect what process to use. It isn't, in fact, true, as actually comparing the two articles and noticing what is present in this one and absent in the other will quickly reveal. (I found it in 15 seconds.) Childish schoolyard parroting of the explanations given to you should be beneath you as a mature Wikipedia editor, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • LOL you're the one who started with the "Is it not obvious? It's very simple." and with a link to a policy I (and everyone else) have obviously read. If you don't enjoy being being talked-down-to, then I suggest you don't do it to other editors, unless you enjoy "teh dramaz". Ryan4314 (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete although a redirect to Women in computing might be acceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a personal essay and/or homework. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook
  • No. It's an attempt at an encyclopaedia article on a valid topic, that we know is valid because we can point to an existing article that we already had on the topic by one of its other names. (In fact, we can point to several, more in which in a moment.)

    And it's even properly based upon valid sources, contrary to the nominator's assertion of "original research" above. One of the sources, that it clearly cites, is a book by Allan Fisher and Jane Margolis, of Carnegie-Mellon University, [http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/gendergap/www/index.html based upon research that they did]. Another of the sources is a paper in Communications of the ACM by a computer science professor. In other words, it's the start of an encyclopaedia article, based upon published sources that are identifiable experts writing in their fields of expertise.

    It's not original research; it's not a novel topic; it's not unverifiable; it's not an essay; and it's not even badly written, albeit that it doesn't follow our manual of style. It's simply a duplicate article, with a widely-used alternative name for the topic, in need of merger with our existing article that uses one of the other names for the topic (which itself is already marked for merger, notice, with yet another duplicate article, with yet another name for this same topic, which in turn is marked for merger with a fourth article, with a fourth alternative name). No deletion required. Uncle G (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep/merge per Uncle G's excellent analysis. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this has WP:SOAPBOX issues but I guess merging some of it is fine. Nerfari (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete because its utter bullshit. I recall a test someone did where boys and girls were offered a doll or a firetruck as a toy, and all the girls went for the dolls, and the boys for the firetruck. They did the same thing with chimpanzees, and the females went for the dolls, while the males went for the firetruck. There is no great oppression of women, forcing them to play with dolls, instead of computers. Its genetics. Anyone who works with children will tell you that a young age, boys and girls are attracted to different toys. Referencing a book by someone who is just giving their opinions, while there are surely other books by people with the same credentials(could afford to go to college and memorized enough information to pass the test and graduate with a degree), who say the exact opposite. Dream Focus 00:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • :... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • :Comment: "I strongly disagree with the ideas referenced in this article" is not a valid argument for deletion. T L Miles (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

::Having one author used as a source for the information, when a thousand others can be used as a source against the information, should be a valid reason to delete. Just because a book was published by someone, doesn't make it a credible reference. Does the information confer with what is officially recognized in textbooks on the subject, or any legitimate recognized scientific journals or studies? Dream Focus 16:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.