RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Mansplaining (second discussion)

Mansplaining (second discussion) | Result: ehh

Mansplaining (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. There's an article to be made here, one that cites scientific studies about how men and women interact, how arrogance helps men but hurts women, and so on. This article is instead a brief history of "incidents" of mansplaining that does little to defend or debunk the idea. Indeed, several of the "incidents" mentioned are not necessarily mansplaining -- and so our critique of actual mansplaining itself is also weak. This is a poor defense of a potentially-useful concept and poor attack on a potentially-toxic problem. The previous discussion was 6 months ago, and the article has not improved. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 04:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

   so rewrite it. ~~ (Sophie) 12:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Voted Keep last time. This time, you got me with: "This is a poor defense of a potentially-useful concept and poor attack on a potentially-toxic problem". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
3. Delete Zionist Goy (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep

1. Is fine. Could be better. Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Keep - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
3. Keep. Christopher (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
4. OP has not bothered, two weeks on, to rewrite the bad parts or to defend his delete reason. Keep. Flannan Isle (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   My reason is literally that RationalWiki, six months on, has not bothered to rewrite the bad parts of the article. :P Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

   {{sofixit}} - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

5. If the alleged problem with the article is that it could be good but it is badly written, then the solution is "improve" not "delete".--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)