Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retro housewife
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Retro housewife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced article on a neologism; apparently original research. I'm having difficulty finding reliable sources that use this term; there is a blog on the subject by the same name which may or may not be notable, but the term 'retro housewife' doesn't seem to be. Robofish (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a dictionary entry as there is no focus upon a particular word, its etymology or usage. Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems easy to add sources which testify to the notability of this post-feminist phenomenon. I have added a couple including a book entitled "Retro Housewife". Given the ease with which this article can be improved in just a few minutes, the article should be kept for further improvement in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The sources you added do not appear to have anything to do with the topic of the article: one is a tongue-in-cheek salute to the 1950s homemaker which pairs reproduced ad plates with factoids about women in the 1950s, while the other, though it treats the topic of the purported post-feminist "revival of domesticity" and contains both the words "retro" and "housewife," makes no reference to the "retro housewife." Please see WP:KETTLE. --RrburkeekrubrR 17:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As observed above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so we are not concerned with particular words here. Nor is it a search engine and so we are not looking for a particular phrase either. What we are concerned with is the topic and this may be described in many ways. For example, this paper talks of "an attempt to redefine women's roles in line with a nostalgic discourse of familialism and a return to the private sphere of the home.". These are different words but clearly the same topic. It is quite easy to find sources of this sort and so the topic is notable. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or preferably Merge somewhere (one of our feminism or gender role articles? housewife?). The concept is notable and worth covering somewhere but under this title it's a neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I do agree that there is a basic concept here which might be encyclopedic. However, neither this article title nor its contents are likely to form the basis of useful material for that article. With respect to the article title, WP:NEO states In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. So, at minimum, the title needs to go. However, the article content is just as problematic, describing a point-of-view on feminism without providing it's context within the various points of view on feminism. Much of the article seems, perhaps only because of the lack of sources for many of the statements and the POV-pushing, to be potentially in violation of WP:NOR. In short, I looked for something to salvage that I could argue needed to be merged into an article like housewife or feminism or post-feminism, but failed to find sourced, non-POV content to salvage. (If you can find content you believe is worth salvaging, I recommend merge as the appropriate alternative.) --Joe Decker (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC) (small correction made --Joe Decker (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC) )[reply]
- Please give a specific example of this original research as I'm not seeing any novel thesis here which has not already appeared in sources such as the ones which I have cited in the article or above. All the author seems to have done is put an existing concept in his own words. This is mandatory for our work here as we must not break copyright by copying sources too closely. Likewise, there isn't much of a POV here as the author does not seem to suggest that the trend is good, bad or make any other value judgement. The only objection I can see is that there is an assumed context of western society, especially the UK/US, but this is not unreasonable for the English Wikipedia. And this can be qualified for clarity without deleting the entire article. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My pleasure. Consider carefully: "The modern version of the housewife has women pursuing an education, entering the work force and then leaving to care for children." I'd compare the first part of that sentence to a statment that "pink is the new black", it is at it's very core a statement which expresses a point of view. Now, points of view are expressable in Wikipedia (heck, it's a point of view that gravity calls an apple to fall to the ground), but for statements which are not essentially scientific or universally accepted (which I'm guessing is the case in the article here), it's clearer to be clear who holds that point of view. "Andy Warhol thinks pink is the new black", or "most post-feminist scholars believe pink is the new black", or "most Americans believe pink is the new black", or what have you. Whether that rises to the level of OR is debatable but not really the primary point, with respect to this particular sentence, I'd just say "this seems like an absolute statement that there's general agreement on this point, I doubt there is general agreement on it even if I agree with it, thus it's got some POV to it and we should fix that." Hope that helps explain my point. I do very much agree with you that there's a core of an idea here that can be usefully merged with housewife and/or post-feminism, I just think it needs to be explored more, sourced more, and given context within the enormous variety of points of view that people have around feminism, etc. --Joe Decker (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC) (Note: apologies for misattribution of merge proposal. --Joe Decker (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- The basic term of the article seems to be somewhat notable, but the article as it stands today is highly POV. I personally busted out laughing while reading most of the text. It either needs to be rewritten with many more citations and a neutral position, or deleted. The citations and about two sentences are about all that can be retained. --Chris (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2010 (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.