Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathanson and Young

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. v/r - T P 13:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathanson and Young

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

This article focusses on the collective work of Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young both of whom have their own articles. There are a number issues here:

This article suffers from original research by synthesis. It relies on mainly primary sources (the books themselves), and 2 newspaper reviews (of individual books) to talk about the body of work by these authors. There has been no scholarly 3rd party work doing this thus far.
The content herein should either be covered in the biographical articles for the authors or in articles about the individual books where notable.
There is coatracking going on here especially in the 'Responses' section.
The major scholarly contribution made by these authors (misandry) has an article of its own and the information relating to that subject could merged to that article--Cailil ^talk 01:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nom's arguments are correct, particularly the fact that most of the references are to the books by the individuals concerned; any worthwhile issues can be treated in the other articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very-well argued nom and per Nomoskedasticity. Surprising that this has survived this long. --Crusio (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect and Comment. My reading of the article's talk page is that the article was created to try to improve our Misandry page by removing excessive use there of the particular point of view pushed by Nathanson and Young. I have made a little section on Nathanson's page Paul_Nathanson#Misandry and I think we could usefully redirect there or to Misandry. I think redirect might be better than delete to avoid loosing what appear to me some possibly useful good faith contributions. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2011 (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.