Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood's double standard

:{{la|Hollywood's double standard}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hollywood%27s_double_standard Stats])

:({{Find sources|Hollywood's double standard}})

Appears to be pure original research and written without a neutral point of view. Article would have to be completely rewritten to cover this subject neutrally. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

:I used Twinkle to tag the article and it didn't notify me that a WP:PROD tag had been placed in the interim. Sorry about that. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete,Delete clearly original research, someone using wikipedia to blog their opinions. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, I was the one who placed the original PROD tag. I think WP:SOAPBOX applies here. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 03:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• :Note: neither WP:OR nor WP:SOAPBOX are valid speedy deletion criteria. If you think the article should be deleted, please say so. Speedy deletion requests are handled differently, and this article doesn't qualify as such. Owen× ☎ 16:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The prod would have worked just fine but since the AfD is open: this is an essay (and not a particularly brilliant one) rather than an article. Detailing criticism of Hollywood is obviously not forbidden but articles have to stick to the NPOV policy and under the title "Hollywood's double standard", it's clearly impossible to ever write something that conforms to it. (extra note: I don't think this can be speedy deleted though) Pichpich (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete – Clearly an WP:OR and Wikipedia is not an essay. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a personal essay, not an article. JIP | Talk 05:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• WP:SNOWBALL Delete for all the reasons listed above (though technically it does not satisfy speedy deletion criteria) Ipsign (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 23:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 23:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep as the specific topic of "double standards" in Hollywood actually appears to meet WP:GNG,[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Hollywood%27s+double+standard%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1#hl=en&gs_nf=1&ds=n&pq=%22hollywood's%20double%20standard%22&cp=14&gs_id=o&xhr=t&q=%22Hollywood%22%20%2B%22double%20standard%22&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&oq=%22Hollywood%22+%2B%22double+standard%22&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=320b8eeb0f94eb46&biw=983&bih=583&bs=1][http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Hollywood%27s+double+standard%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1#q=%22Hollywood%22+%2B%22double+standard%22&hl=en&tbm=bks&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=JbYwUNW8DofpigLDpYGoBg&sqi=2&ved=0CBcQ_AUoAA&prmdo=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ea6f0897f2fce5b5&biw=983&bih=583] and it should be possible to correct format and tone and source this article. If deleted (as seems likely), I would urge it be redirected toward double standard without prejudice toward a recreation of a properly sourced encyclopdic article on this topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as an original research essay. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• In reviewing the available and unfortunately unused sources, it would appear that statements and conclusions offered in the article are sourcable. What if the article was fixed? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:13, 20 August 2012 (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.