Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biological determinism of human gender roles

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. The weight of WP:PAG based argument comes down heavily against retaining this page. There was one suggestion buried in a delete comment that a merge might be possible but I'm not seeing any other support for it. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biological determinism of human gender roles

Biological determinism of human gender roles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It may have been made in good faith, but this is an unnecessary

It presents a very one-sided view of

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. The article was created procedurally to remove a coatrack from the main article, which certainly didn't need it. The material here is indeed unbalanced and should be deleted. For the record, labels like "inherently" and "usually" are emotive and unreliable: opinions and attitudes on such matters are contextually (medicine, philosophy, sociology, and genetics are four disparate contexts, for example) and historically dependent, and terms like biological determinism have had varied connotations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is an important article, and has plenty of references. It is not unbalanced - as well as talking about biological determinism, it talks about the book by Rose, Lewontin and Kamin called
  Not In Our Genes, which criticies genetic determinism. Vorbee (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First of all the fact that a topic is controversial and "is inherently prone to POV issues" as
  User:Crossroads1 states above is not a valid reason to delete the article. If it were a lot of very important articles such as Creationism and Vaccine hesitancy should be deleted which I doubt anyone would think is a good idea. I agree that this article needs a lot of work. IMO it currently has too much emphasis of the viewpoint from people such as Gould and Lewontin and not enough from people such as Stephen Pinker, E.O. Wilson, and Richard Dawkins. But that's an argument to improve the article not delete it. I could possibly see a justification for merging this into Biological determinism. However, when I looked at Biological determinism it already has several sections that point to articles on specific sub-topics. So I think this article should be kept (and improved) and also that there should be a link to it added in the Biological determinism article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This seems to be an argument admitting the article is bad, but saying we should keep it because someday someone else will put in the work to fix it. Regardless, the problem is not that it tends toward controversy, but it is inherently POV. We already have NPOV titled articles like

talk) 20:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"This seems to be an argument admitting the article is bad, but saying we should keep it because someday someone else will put in the work to fix it" Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. If you look at the

Vaccine denial. If someone wanted to do the same with this article and rename it to something less loaded but retain a redirect I would support that. But I think the article itself should clearly be kept --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

By now you've admitted that the article needs material from the other viewpoint added as well as the title being bad. Once I make it discuss this topic from NPOV and give it a neutral title, how is it anything other than a redundant content fork of

talk) 06:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep ("intro" Note: I may be
  new to this, but there is a first time for everything [plus, anyway, this might already be my nth time -- to "not" vote ["!vote"] -- for some other "small" value of n [other than "n=1"] ... so, ... here goes.) I understand that this topic is one that, at least in the minds of some persons, is controversial. This topic may have a lot of baggage for some of us (perhaps partly emotional, perhaps other kinds). Perhaps partly because someone (let's call that person "P3", 'just for now'; that might help to avoid using pronouns ... which might be "even more" of a good idea, for this particular "!vote", than ... for some ordinary "common or garden-variety" AfD discussions) has -- let's imagine, for a minute -- a different "take" on things, than your ordinary "randomly chosen" ("Plano vanilla") reader or editor of Wikipedia
  .

For example, [P3 might be] a "

IMHO -- "caution" does not "necessarily" mean that we have to delete the article! It might mean, that we have to keep in mind, that there may well be some persons in this world, who have a motivation to [try to] be kinda bossy about what other

persons think, say, and do.

PS: Thanks for your patience, since ... this is (it turned out to be) so long. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. A perfectly valid subject. Perhaps it could be merged somewhere, however without a clear target for merging this is definitely a "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC). Yes, arguably a content fork, merge to Gender role. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would like to point out that our keep votes all have poor rationales; whereas I believe my rationale for deletion, endorsed above by the article's own creator, is much stronger. To reiterate: This article violates
  talk) 03:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Crossroads1 has the stronger arguments, which should be taken into account with regard to what
  talk) 18:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete This article isn't about "biological determinism of human gender roles" at all. This is evidenced by the first sentence which asserts that gender roles are about "human sexuality" which totally misconstrues the topic - gender roles are rather "a social role encompassing a range of behaviors and attitudes" (according to
  WP:SIZESPLIT is satisfied. Meanwhile "gender assignment", "homosexuality", and "social construction of gender" are different topics, and if these sections are removed we'd be left with nothing. For an actual section related to this title see Gender#Biological_factors_and_views. ----Pontificalibus 13:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I had trouble formulating my convoluted assessment and thus put off commenting here, but I find that Crossroads1 has essentially done the job for me. In summary, this was created in good faith and could be shifted in a variety of different directions, but I can't see any likely outcome that does not involve a high degree of redundancy. This is not needed, and housekeeping considerations suggest it should be removed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I actually originally thought that this article was a keep and was just poorly rewritten, but the arguements above have changed my opinion on that. I disagree with the arguments for delete based on heavily unbalanced content-- that can be changed. Indeed, the article in its original form has a more neutral format. Take a look at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#BioDet for how this article doesn't have to be written with such biased language. But I do agree that the article is present in many forms all over wikipedia, and its size doesn't merit a content fork, especially because a lot of the language in this is "fluff." I would merge to Sex differences in psychology#Psychological traits as this seems to cover what the title is referring to (while not covering some of the content). For those that are still not convinced, take a look at it this way: 2 of the 3 sections in the article are merely summaries of main articles, and if this article is supposed to be justified as a content fork, then how can it in turn point to subjects (the third category, anyway just seems to be a summary of gender discrimination)? The content fork justification was the original justification for creating this, and seems to be the only justification, but at the same time, can't be true as there is no original content on this page. Unless someone wants to add new content to this (which is already extensively covered in my proposed redirect), this is a delete for me. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2019 (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.