Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gender Paradigm
=[[The Gender Paradigm]]=
:{{la|The Gender Paradigm}} – (
:({{Find sources|The Gender Paradigm}})
Reads like WP:ESSAY and/or WP:OR. The article arrives at a conclusion. — Timneu22 · talk 14:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. It doesn't belong at Domestic violence, where the same user added the text, nor does it belong as a stand-alone article. Essay-like, no evidence of usage of the title in any of the sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say no evidence of usage. It appears in the title of a paper by Dutton and Nicholls [http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Dutton_GenderParadigmInDV-Pt1.pdf "The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory"], who appear to be key figures, along with Archer and Fiebert, in attacking the traditional female as victim, male as perpetrator "feminist" paradigm. The fact of the matter is, these author's views are already included in the main DV article. This is just an extra section of the article, which repeats content found elsewhere, in addition to synthesizing sources, and presenting it in an argument format. The article in question is just a POV fork, has major POV issues (and some OR), and ignores any criticism or opposition to these views. The issue remains, in the words of Stark “how to reconcile gender parity in the use of force by partners with asymmetry in the dynamics and effects of partner abuse”. Perhaps there is an article that could be written about how IPV has been presented over the years, how it has been challenged, and what is the state of affairs now. You know, something that isn't one sided. But the article name is a poor choice, and the content highly problematic. -Andrew c [talk] 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - this is an interestign essay, and sources could be found, but it would have to be retitled and substantially expanded. Perhaps incubation or merger could work. A lot of work has clearly gone into this, and I feel something useful must be in there. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Userfy non OR and redirect to Domestic violence. Per Gene93k and Andrew c while the article is a POV and Or mess the subject matter seems notable. A google scholar search will (while not necessarily the best way to assess notability) show a series of references to 'the gender paradigm' in relation domestic violence. I sympathize with Gene93k view and would suggest redirecting Gender paradigm to Domestic violence and userfying any non-OR elements - with the hope that with some direction the editors will be able to work constructively on an appropriate article for wikipedia on the subject.
I understand and agree with the nominators and CFred's points that this text doesn't belong in Domestic violence but perhaps a brief properly sourced and duely weighted note about the gender paradigm does?--Cailil talk 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC) - Keep. Article may need some tidying up but i think it wrong to dismiss it as POV when in my view much of the domestic violence article as a whole stinks of POV as a product of a feminist POV perspective. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22The+Gender+Paradigm%22 Gender paradigm has a fair number of google scholar refs]. --Penbat (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe there can never be a critical discussion of the "gender paradigm" without mentioning Dutton, but I thought the google scholar results when you removed Dutton from the mix were interesting [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22The+Gender+Paradigm%22+-dutton+&btnG=Search&as_sdt=80000000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0]. Not many articles related to IPV. At the very least, makes me wonder if the title is a good choice do to possible disambiguation issues.-Andrew c [talk] 13:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
::I think you are confusing the issue. Gender paradigm is not just about IPV. Also by removing "Dutton" from your search you may be losing relevant articles that happen to include citations to Dutton.--Penbat (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2010 (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.