The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Consensus appears to be that this project violates WP:POINT and/or WP:NPOV, plus concerns about the clarity of the scope, the redundancy to existing projects (chiefly WP:MEN), a scarcity of participants, the risk of it becoming a POV battleground and that the normal WikiProject creation process appears to not have taken place. It seems like much of the keep case consists of "give it a chance" with little to say about the concerns that were raised, while some people are recommending a redirect to WP:MEN echoing the delete arguments. Such a redirect may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This one- two-participant WikiProject is a fork of WP:WikiProject Men's Issues (semi-active). The creator proposed this project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Menafter already creating the project page. The proposal lists four articles that would be within the scope of WikiProject Men. All of them are already within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues or WP:WikiProject Gender Studies (active) or both. The lack of any listed "Goals" or "Scope" on this WikiProject Men page demonstrates that this is nothing more than one editor's pointy creation to "prove" that if we have WikiProjects for women, we should also have mirror WikiProjects for men. For the answer to that, see the essay WP:Systemic bias. Bottom line, we already have an active Gender Studies project and a semi-active Men's Issues project; the creator should join one of those two (or both) instead of creating a new project on the same topic. Levivich 15:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I share many of the concerns expressed in the nomination, but as a procedural matter, would it make better sense to wait to see the discussion outcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men before considering page deletion? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: I would agree if there were an active conversation going on there. But after a week, there are zero comments except for the proposer's. My understanding is that the WikiProject Council is semi-active or inactive itself. I agree we should have one conversation about it somewhere, but since the proposal is getting no participation, I thought I'd bring it to editors' attention here. Levivich 15:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on which way this is going to go. If it's just going to be a catch-all "every male biography" project it will serve no useful purpose, but I could see legitimate grounds for a place to coordinate topics like men's health, male sexuality etc. At present the project is too vague in its remit for it to be possible to form an opinion. ‑ Iridescent 15:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly pointy in the light of the recent discussions, and the topics of gender and andrology are covered by existing WikiProjects. --Fæ (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the intended scope is not entirely clear, I think that the best interpretation of the available information is that the proposed project is not needed and is WP:POINTy. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After reading some of the subsequent arguments for keeping, I'm withdrawing my delete comment. For now, I'm neutral. I still have the previous concerns, but I recognize that, as a matter of WP policy, those are really WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and as such, I cannot justify deletion on that basis. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following this discussion, and I see that Netoholic pinged me in the section below. I've been going round in circles about my opinion on this, and I'll just stay neutral on it, while expressing some personal distaste for the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Funnily enough, just as this nomination was being posted, I was adding myself to the project and making some improvements to the page. In spite of my involvement, though, I also am dubious about the need for this project given the related projects that already exist. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is funny! I updated the nom to note two members, but I'd like to point out to everyone that WanderingWanda's sole contribution to date to the project, which was adding topics/articles to the project's scope, was promptly reverted by Netoholic. So I guess there's a civil war between the only two participants of the project? This demonstrates how pointy this project is. Levivich 16:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. You can read my rationale for creation of this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men. Specifically, this is meant to be a top-level organization WikiProject meant to parallel WP:WikiProject Women. The existing WP:WikiProject Men's Issues and WP:WikiProject Gender Studies each have a quite narrow focus of interest - neither would be appropriate for, say, maintenance and improvement efforts involving men's biographies. The goal, as I see it, is to use this WikiProject for interested participants to be able to track article status, get notifications, and enable quality improvement on what seems to be a forgotten strata of articles. If you look at any matching pair of basic articles (man/woman, father/mother, boy/girl, masculism/feminism, andrology/gynaecology), its apparent that the male-focused articles are now generally less-developed than their counterparts. Certainly, there has been an extreme amount of focus on improving women's articles, leading to the creation of at least 17 women-focused WikiProjects, and it seems like now our male-based articles, maintenance processes, and article improvement processes have begun to lag behind. Perhaps the nominator is presuming that there is no interest in improving these articles? I feel it is this nomination while the project is in its early creation period that is WP:POINTy. -- Netoholic@16:04 16:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What articles would be in the scope of WikiProject Men that are not in the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues or WikiProject Gender Studies? If it's male biographies, well, I think the most-recent stats we have is 82% male biographies and 18% female biographies, so I think we're OK there? Why isn't WP:WikiProject Biography sufficient to handle male biographies? Also, your argument is undercut when you revert the only other participant's additions of articles to the project scope (see my links above). Levivich 16:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A good deal of Wikipedia processes have women-focused versions, but not men-based counterparts - consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women vs no Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Men and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts but no equivalent for men. If you're implying that a disparity in male vs female biographies is a reason not to have these basic tracking functions, then I have to disagree. In fact, if the number of articles is so much higher, there is an even greater need for these mechanisms to track status. I don't think this is only about biographies though. For instance, men's organizations and men's sports likewise have no equivalent mechanisms for tracking article status or promoting improvements. -- Netoholic@ 16:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the project is in its infancy, but what is the rush to delete? And even once it is no longer in its infancy, it needs to actually be disruptive to fall under WP:POINT, and the nominator has given no evidence of such disruption. There really are almost no limits on editors creating WikiProjects to bring editors together. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wait for 6 months and see how the project is going then. CoolSkittle (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per above. It may become nothing in the end or become problematic and need to be deleted but I think the wish to delete it so quickly isn't helpful or productive. Springee (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very pointy. I'm not quite convinced it is a good idea to let this project fester by delaying this discussion some few months. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 18:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikiproject Men's Issues.The recent disagreement over the project's scope ([1][2][3]) seems to just solidify for me why this project is a lost cause. I have no clue why Wanda has put their lot in with this WikiProject, but they are correct in that they are a co-equal member now. If the only two participants can't work together, then I just prefer we be done with this experiment already. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 22:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: I have a theory as to why Wanda "joined" - concern trolling. They have attempted to change the scope of the project to put it in the most narrow, controversial light (and make it appear redundant with WP:WikiProject Men's Issues) in order to affect this deletion discussion itself. Their recent contribs adding this WikiProject's template to topics based on a particular slant and without adding necessary article ratings/priority, are likely meant to mock the project and sabotage future legitimate tagging efforts. -- Netoholic@ 22:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: I don't want to get involved with all that, but if that is what you think then nothing I say will likely convince you otherwise. My experience with Wanda has been on balance very different than yours. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 23:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that I'm trying to "mock" or "sabotage" anything is a pure flight of fancy. I make no bones about the fact that I have mixed feelings about the project, and I certainly have mixed feelings about working with someone who has been unrelentingly hostile towards me. But I joined to make the project better. That was my only motivation. Do you know how I picked the "slanted" topics I did? Since Wikipedia relies on WP:RELIABLESOURCES I went to a reliable source: The APA's Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men, a well-researched academic overview by the well-respected American Psychological Association. I cracked it open. I read it. I wrote down key terms. "Hegemonic masculinity" appeared repeatedly so I wrote it down. It started talking about transgender men so I wrote down "trans men". Etc. The majority of the articles that I tagged probably came from that list. That's the kind of work I'm willing to put in. Maybe you find the topics I chose unserious or mock-worthy but I don't. As for the fact that I didn't rate anything, I figured it was fine to save that for later. *Shrug* Is that not kosher? I've seen other people add project tags for other projects without adding ratings. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I don't understand how this project can develop into anything other than a fork of WikiProject Men's Issues aka WP:MEN. That project could get restarted, heck it could even get moved over to WP:WikiProject Men, but there's no need for two such projects. I note we have a WP:WikiProject Women but not also a WP:WikiProject Women's Issues, as that would be redundant. Levivich
Comment - Deferring an !vote, largely to see whether it is the project or the nomination that is more pointy. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rambling opinion leaning towards delete/userfy pending further discussion Normally I wouldn't want to delete a one-week-old Wikiproject. But given the subject matter, I think there is a material risk of this turning into battleground, and things like calling what looks like a good-faith addition to scope 'clearly disruptive' give me further concerns along these lines. If there is a viable WikiProject that can form a consensus on scope and purpose and distinction from other projects, then fine. But if that conversation is to happen at all, it won't happen as a deletion discussion. So I would delete for now and then allow the possibility of recreation if there is any sign of a viable project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Men or some other venue. The Land (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Land: For transparency, I marked that edit as such due to that editor's recent disruption in other gender-based areas, and their misleading change to the WikiProject introduction which attempted to poison the well for participants of this MfD by attempting to equate this WikiProject with men's rights activism and other deeply-controversial areas. I'd also invite you to track their recent contribs adding this WikiProject's template to topics based on a particular slant and without adding necessary article ratings/priority. I believe they are WP:NOTHERE to actually improve the situation. -- Netoholic@ 19:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I'm going to keep an open mind about everyone's motivations at this point. The Land (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I joined the project because I want to help improve it. Simple as that. I think a project focused on men and boys could be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. I'm disappointed that Netoholic does not seem interested in collaborating or compromising and instead seems to want to take WP:OWNERSHIP of the page, immediately undoing the good faith edits I've made and accusing me of disruption. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because there is no reason to single out this wikiproject when there are many others that have been dead for years. I don't think it's a good deletion criterion that a new project only have one or two members - that is to be expected. Frankly, so many pages on WP are a total mess, that singling out this doesn't make sense. If it turns out the creation of this group was to make a wp:point (as this deletion probably was), then we can re-discuss. If there evidence of that this was created to be disruptive? If not, let it stay. Men are half the population, anyway. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalenciaᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 'there are already too many male biographies' is not a good reason to delete this either. Yikes. Just withdraw the nomination. Yikes. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalenciaᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to single out WikiProject Men is that it's a new project duplicative of the already-existing WP:MEN. Everything in the scope of WikiProject Men (literally, every article) is already in the scope of either WP:MEN (semi-active) or WP:WikiProject Gender Studies (active). There are two participants, and the second participant's efforts to expand the scope were reverted by the project creator as "clearly disruptive" [4]. I don't know how you get out of these points that this is about "too many male biographies", or a project being "dead for years", or too few members. None of those are the reasons for this nomination. I cannot withdraw the nomination because there have already been delete !votes. If editors think we should have multiple projects on these topics then, fine, let's keep it, but please don't mischaracterize my nomination argument. Levivich 19:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: as the nominator points out, systematic bias is the reason why creating WPMen to mirror WPWomen is false balance. But in fact the creator doesn't seem to want an analogous project to WPWomen (such a project would focus on tagging the 80% of biographies whose subjects are male); instead what they want is a duplicate of WP Men's Issues. The solution is to actively participate in the existing WP Men's Issues (or related projects like Gender Studies), and get people to bring it from "semi-active" to "active". — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The lack of any listed "Goals" or "Scope" on this WikiProject Men page demonstrates that this is nothing more than one editor's pointy creation to "prove" that if we have WikiProjects for women, we should also have mirror WikiProjects for men." An alternate interpretation would be that it is a brand new WikiProject, and it would need more members to clearly define its goals. Most WikiProjects go through extensive debates to define or redefine their scope. Dimadick (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: I have a simpler explanation - I used the boilerplate Template:WikiProject and those blank sections are just the default appearance. As you said, scope and goals are something that develops after discussion with legitimately interested participants, and this WP is a recent creation. I've been working on more of the backend setup, like categories and template stuff. -- Netoholic@ 22:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has a poorly defined scope and is likely to become a battleground. It could further systematic bias and create false bias. I have heard arguments from keep voters that it does not violate policies, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument of what good it will do. I concur with previous users that creating an article to improve articles about mens' health and sexuality or other specific topics could be helpful, but the lack of a clear scope hampers the effectiveness of this WikiProject towards that goal. If it is deleted, it should be without prejudice to recreation after further discussion and the development of a proper scope. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC) (typos fixed: 00:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Procedural delete - The proposal for this WikiProject is still open and has only 1 support vote (by the proposer) and no discussion whatsoever. Creating the project was premature. If consensus is built at the proposal, only then should the WikiProject be created. Kaldari (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I noticed and agreed with the notifications to WP:MEN and WP:Gender Studies. I also wonder given the proposed scope and the ongoing discussion whether WP:BIOGRAPHY and WP:WOMEN should be notified. I am raising this here in advance to avoid any conflict that could arise from WP:CANVASSING. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for posting a note on the proposal page. I also agree with posting at the Bio and Women WikiProjects (and any other WikiProjects). WP:CANVASSING explicitly permits neutral-worded statements on WikiProject talk pages. Levivich 01:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [5], [6]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netoholic (talk • contribs) 02:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: you recently left messages announcing WikiProject Men on the talk pages of WikiProjects Sports, Mil hist, Soc, Psych, Pol, Orgs, Discrim, Hist, Video games, and Bio, all of which were reverted as spam (e.g., here and here), plus a message on VPMisc. How does posting this AfD to WikiProject Gender Studies (which has articles that overlap with the scope of WikiProject Men) and WikiProject Women (the direct analogue to WikiProject Men) constitute canvassing? What makes those two WikiProjects different from all the others? Levivich 04:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WP:MEN. That WikiProject is listed as semi-active, so maybe these forces could combine. – bradv🍁 03:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exceedingly pointy, and likely to cause an enormous number of issues if left to its own devices. Honestly thought it was an April Fools joke that hadn't got deleted/noticed, most disappointing to see that this is a real thing. Yes, Wikipedia needs to address its biases, but this feels like the opposite of a solution! Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, waaaaay too broad. InvalidOS (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointy and ridiculous. There is a huge systemic bias towards men in Wikipedia, and the proposal for this project does not have the support required. Do something useful with your time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obvious POV pushing disruption. I agree completely with Peacemaker67's comments above - we have a significant problem with the over-representation of men and associated male-related topics, and proposals like this can't be taken seriously. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the last four delete comments directly above. Most notably WP:POINT though. Sergecross73msg me 10:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be just a pointy exercise based on a dislike of efforts to balance the over-representation of men, and it lacks enough support to form a viable project. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Issues (WP:MEN). It's usually better to revive an existing project than to start a new one with an overlapping scope, unless there is sufficient activity to justify this. WikiProject Men's Issues can be renamed if necessary. — Newslingertalk 18:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the procedural grounds and the point about, well, pointy-ness made above. XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the context of its creation, it just seems disruptive. If the proposal gets a lot of support, then no prejudice against its recreation. I don't know about a redirect to WikiProject Men's Issues, which specifically doesn't correspond to WikiProject Women but instead is about the men's movement(s). As such I'm not sure the WP:MEN shortcut is really appropriate either, given the men's movements (as far as I'm familiar with them, which admittedly isn't all that much) don't seem to actually be representative of half the population, rhetoric aside. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: This is true, and your concerns are valid. However, I just don't want to have to go through this process again at RFD, so I !voted for the redirect. It's an inactive/semi-active project, and Redirects are cheap. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 22:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectI have some misgivings about Netoholic's reasoning. I hear comparisons of projects and numbers, but what I don't hear is a reason why having this project would benefit Wikipedia. I am a little concerned that that isn't the main topic of discussion. As I understand, the women projects are not built just to handle coverage--they are built because mostly men edit Wikipedia. It isn't a problem that can fix itself. Special attention needed to be paid due to that disparity. I don't see any similar situation regarding men, and I don't really see how an overarching men's project will improve Wikipedia as a whole. I also don't see how it would improve particular parts of Wikipedia in a way that Men's Issues would not, especially in biographies. I don't see what special problems there are in covering men that a majority male editor population cannot solve organically. I think one day there may be a place for such a Wikiproject, but it isn't right now. I like a redirect to make it easier to find the actual Men's Issues project, though. Prometheus720 (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a solution looking for a problem. I said recently at a meetup that the reason I am supportive of Women in Red is not really because they're writing about women, but rather because it's a well-organised group of like-minded editors who have come together in an atmosphere of general camaraderie and mutual respect in order to encourage each other to write and improve articles. If they were group of Women's Institute members all wanting to improve our coverage on articles about jam and cakes, I'd feel the same. This project, however, hasn't set out any goals, listed many articles it intends to focus on, and the two main participants have already turned on each other. Therefore, I think it's creating more heat than light and should be quickly put to one side, taken out the back, and shot unceremoniously. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 07:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A ridiculous, POINTy duplicate of existing projects. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with others that the creation of this wikiproject was a silly exercise in point-making, roughly on a par with the perennial College Republican stunt involving scholarships for white men. But, I also don't really see what the harm of it is -- certainly, I would rather have the project founder working to improve articles about men rather than disrupting articles about women (or academics, or anything else). On the other hand, the distinction between this and WP:MEN is not very convincing. So count me as redirect or keep. --JBL (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The creator's ongoing work around masculism has convinced me that I was wrong about the potential upside of keeping, whereas the arguments that this is just a fork still look compelling. So I am changing my vote to redirect. --JBL (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a fork, as detailed in the rationale at the top. There is certainly room for parity between Project: Women and Project: Men. It already exists, even if the names are not the same. Work within an established project, don't start a new one. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just pointy even if it is not meant to be so. Are we going to tag this WikiProject on every single article? Cringy. Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉 22:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had quietly created this WikiProject page May 9 after comparing several article "pairs", and finding that men's articles seem to be less-developed than their women's counterparts. I looked for an existing WikiProject and only found WP:WikiProject Men's Issues, which states its scope as men's issues (redirects to men's movement). I have no strong interest in the men's movement activism topics, and the articles I found lacking were more broad (men, boy, father, andrology, men's health) than would be suited for that WikiProject. I am absolutely dismayed by the stunning lack of WP:AGF and unfounded WP:ASPERSIONS being cast against me - there was no WP:POINT intended at all and no one has shown there was.
WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals is highly-inactive (I'd almost call that process dead), but the static resources of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council for setting up a WikiProject are still useful. Still, to voters @Tryptofish, The Land, Kaldari, Peacemaker67, and Rhododendrites: I have to point out that nowhere is it stated that the Council process is mandatory - and since it is so dead, its hardly fair to expect fast or clear results. I fully-intended to go slowly on this, try to attract participants, and grow the project organically because I knew a lot of people might misinterpret its intent. I was largely working on back-end setup, and had not done any formal announcement or any recruiting posts yet. I feel like proposing deletion of a WikiProject just getting off the ground is hardly fair - and, in fact, we don't even delete long-time inactive WikiProjects.
This MfD request was then posted just 6 days after I'd created the WikiProject. The nominator didn't contact me prior to posting it to inquire about the Project's goals or scope, or to ask why I made it. Not that he had to, but it would have been a courtesy, and maybe given the opportunity, he would have found that my intentions were noble. I am firmly on the side of article improvement and general maintenance. I do not see this as competition against any Women's WikiProjects, nor do I see this WikiProject as a threat against efforts to combat systemic bias. Article improvement is not article creation. Delete voters are effectively saying that men's health, men's organizations, lists of men, and works about men shall not be improved in an organized fashion. That attitude is simply not a healthy Wikipedia culture.
I would like to point out one very important thing in closing. Its been often confirmed that only about 10% of active editors are women. That said, this deletion discussion might prove conclusively that Wikipedia is not as dominated by men's influence as is so often claimed. If male influence were so strong, then this WikiProject would have been created years ago, have a huge participant list, and perhaps itself would have spawned 17 men-focused sub-WikiProjects. The fact that WP:WikiProject Men is in fact being considered for deletion is evidence to the contrary. Male editors on Wikipedia have done a fine job of stepping up and work side-by-side with female editors to ensure fair coverage - to the point where coverage and coordination to improve their own topics has been lacking. I would have loved to work with some of those editors on necessary article improvement of men's topics, and I still feel that is a noble goal. The idea that there is still some sort of internal war of the sexes needs to be checked against reality, and the deletion discussion of this WikiProject might provide a bit of proof that the community is much healthier than we thought. While I think its unfair to delete it and I'd be very sad to see it go, maybe all this will have served a higher purpose than I could have imagined when I started it. -- Netoholic@ 05:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: you are a good editor and have contributed more to this encyclopedia than I could ever even hope to match. However, I think you miss the mark a bit in this statement, but I don't read this discussion the same ways as you at all. It is awfully clear to me that editors feel like we have made very little amount of progress representing women fairly to such a degree that they see proposals such as yours as not only in poor taste but a threat to progress. We have no need for this wikiproject because, at present time, the whole wiki-movement has fundamentally served the same purpose. 17.83% of our biographical articles are about women (source). That's less than a fifth! Most of us find it's easy to say that the men are doing just fine with those kinds of figures (regardless of the current article quality). This certainly has left the articles you refer to in disrepair as you have noticed. Acknowledging the problem is one thing, but then getting to the solution is clearly more difficult. This is where most people have differed with you (from my perspective at least). You had a number of possibilities to tackle this problem ahead of you, right? Starting this WikiProject was just one option of many. Several !voters here have cited re-invigorating WikiProject Men's Issues as a good possible course of action. Your contention here is shaky at best citing no interest in contributing to Men's Rights Movement-related articles. We all agree that is a legitimate concern, I think. However, we differ on the questions of: (1) Is not Men's health a men's issue? (2) Is the promotion of quality Wikipedia articles that focus on men also a men's issue? This is where at least I am coming from in my redirect vote. The line-up is one-to-one, and were you to restart the project, we'd all hope you do so with the scope that makes the most sense (ie. not MRM). I'll skip the discussion about taskforces since this is long-winded enough. Finally, I would like to close with how the wikiproject has been disruptive so far since I do not agree with your assessment of the matter. You have left out any mention of your recent notices to various WikiProjects inviting them to join this new endeavour. This included my own WikiProject (WP:POLITICS)[7], Military history [8], Discrimination [9], Sports [10], and even Videogames [11]. All those were posted after this MfD nomination, and I still wonder why you felt that it was for the best to post them. From my perspective as a WikiProject Politics participant, I did not put that page into my watchlist to get mass invites for projects that have nothing directly to do with politics. I just find that the recent conflict between yourself and Wanda to be discouraging since you two clearly share the same goals. AGF is not a suicide pact, and I wouldn't fault anyone for thinking this came as a response to the recent community interest in gender-related topics. Either way, if you can't work with the one person who literally signed up to help improve these articles, then I really don't know what else to say besides there might be some problems there. I hope I am not being too out of line (again) for being a new user and saying all that; nor do I hope to be upsetting. This is just where I think things went wrong from my limited understanding of the situation. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 06:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: replying by paragraph - 1) The disparity in women vs men biographies (17.83%) almost exactly matches the coverage disparity (20%) found in U.S. newspapers in a recent study and if you account for historical suppression of women it could show that our percentage of coverage is not far off from the best we could expect to provide based on the sources we have to work with. Perhaps in Wikipedia's early years, male editors were focused on male topics... but seeing how many men support/participate in WP:WOMEN and sub-projects, I think that's not the case anymore on average (again, look how this WikiProject is being treated). Our coverage of women's topics of interest (those things outside biographies) is clearly more substantial and better quality than men's topics. 2) Those topics may be "men's issues", but seeing as WP:WikiProject Men's Issues has the association with the men's rights movement and activism, its easy to see why so few would want to be attached to it. I am positive if I listed myself as a participant in it, that fact alone would be used against me to claim I am a misogynist, MRM activist, POV warrier, or whatever. Its a poison pill I won't swallow. I had a long-term idea to possibly propose converting it to a taskforce under WikiProject Men. 3) A number of voters here described willingness to keep the Project if more interest was shown, so I was a bit forced to make some announcements to recruit during this 7-day MfD window, when I would otherwise have not done so yet. Such notices are not spam - in fact, I just pointed out to someone else that there is nothing unusual about posting announcements of new WikiProjects to talk pages of existing ones of tangential interest. 4) If I were joining a freshly-created WikiProject, my first act would be to post on the talk page or ask the creator directly what help they needed the most. I would not do what Wanda did and post incomplete WikiProject banners on a bunch of article talk pages, nor would I immediately attempt to redefine the WikiProject's written scope. -- Netoholic@ 09:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: - You say that this was an article improvement project and you imply here that this would not include biographies. However, we cannot read your mind and at the WikiProject Council you said: "A WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of men's topics such as ... biographies about men." You also included Category:Men in the list of relevant articles. It wouldn't be casting WP:ASPERSIONS to claim that increasing the number of biographies about men would increase systematic bias. From the evidence available to !voters, it would seem that adding more biographies of men would likely be one of the goals of the WikiProject. I'd be willing to join a project about Men's Health and Sexuality and improve articles in that sphere. However, at this time the project is about "articles of interest to men". While this would incluude many biographies of women, I would be surprised if this WikiProject plans to cover them. I think that if this discussion results in keep, significant rethinking of scope will need to occur, to develop a coherent and specific definition. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StudiesWorld: I recently wrote up the missing Goals/Scope sections of WP:WikiProject Men taking the feedback on biographies and other items into account - please have a read. I'd really like to see this be a broad-spectrum article improvement WikiProject - not one based on creation of articles. A lot of the uncertainty was strictly due to this MfD coming so early in the WikiProject's development. -- Netoholic@ 10:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: 1) 3% of our total biographies is almost 50,000 articles. There is a lot more work to be done to say the least on that front, and it could potentially take years to accomplish that. Either way, I think you are rather oversimplifying this rather nuanced discussion on gender-/-publicity-/-notability. 2) When I say "revamp" I am not talking about the same project with the same scope. I am talking about completely reinventing the Wikiproject. Take a look at this: [12]. Less than a year in and WikiProject Portals does not look the same whatsoever. Talking the current participants, reaching out to a few more who edit high-importance Men-related articles, and getting consensus for doing something with a larger scope. 3) We'll agree to disagree on that point. I guess it can boil down to my own personal preference vs the situation you're in. 4) Wanda is a lot newer than you. You are speaking with more than a decade and a half of experience with this site. From their perspective, they were doing what would have been normal work for any other wikiproject (until they were told to stop). They really are here to build an encyclopedia, that I assure you. (edit conflict) –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 09:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: This probably isn't the place to get deeply into that discussion, so I'm definitely simplifying a bit, just to keep responses to the main points. -- Netoholic@ 10:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic:"would be used against me to claim I am a misogynist, MRM activist, POV warrier, or whatever" would be terrible, very unfair. Though of course, it has not happened, this is you being a hypothetical victim as a rhetorical tactic to avoid this WikiProject being deleted.
Checking through your contribution history for just this month, I can see you attacking others multiple times for being POV warriors, activists, criticising "one segment" and even all "academics" for manipulating Wikipedia policies. I can see why you have these fears of being subjected to the same dismissive parody that you have a long track record of dishing out. As you appear to want to make a full statement, have you anything critical to say about your recent use of tired dog whistles? --Fæ (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fæ: I can't answer your final loaded question, but as for the rest, you're just casting WP:ASPERSIONS. You can't just gesture at month's-worth of contributions and just claim I said any those things. I also don't see at all what this has to do with improving the quality of men's articles or maintaining categories and lists. If I have flaws, that has no bearing on whether this strata of articles should or should not be collaboratively improved. -- Netoholic@ 10:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How sad that you do not for one second reflect over the irony that what is sauce for the goose really should always be sauce for the non-egg-laying gander and instead are locked into a pattern of self-victimization. I am confident you fully remember what you wrote on Jimmy Wales' talk page without me supplying a diff. This is not an Arbcom case, so here is a probably very incomplete selection from just this month, searching for a few trigger words.
Those links do not confirm that I've "attacked" anyone the way you've said I've done. Please keep on topic with the discussion at hand, which is whether men-focused articles should be improved via collaborative editing. -- Netoholic@ 19:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The links perfectly demonstrate "I can see you attacking others multiple times for being POV warriors, activists, criticising "one segment" and even all "academics" for manipulating Wikipedia policies." This is what you described as the "poison pill" you did not want directed at yourself, yet you do exactly this to others. Playing dog whistle politics time after time, will eventually bite you back, and with this track record you can hardly expect others to see you as the victim or martyr you are trying to paint yourself as. --Fæ (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: - Thank you. I am already somewhat involved in the Gender and LGBT studies WikiProjects. I am not a member of the men's rights movement and I think that their ideology is disgusting, baseless, and abhorrent. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is overlap of WikiProject interest on a number of articles - that's why its valuable to add WikiProject banners. If an editor wants to work in that overlapped subject area (Men + Sexology, LGBT + Health), they can find those more easily. It also means WikiProjects can coordinate by, for example, scheduling a month-long editing event to work on that intersecting set of articles, and invite members of both WikiProjects. -- Netoholic@ 19:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: the opening words of your statement are bizarre: I had quietly created this WikiProject page.
You have been around long enough to know that per the opening sentence of WP:PROJ, "A WikiProject is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia.".
So the whole point of a WikiProject is to gather a group. And that isn't achieved by acting quietly.
Regardless of all the other issues around this project, that alone makes me smell a rat. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WikiProject Men's Issues proved there is interest. The response here - ranging from suspicion to misandry - is exactly why a quiet start was appropriate. Had I done the opposite, tried to form a group prior to creating the page, you'd likely project malice in that also. WikiProjects are a chicken and the egg thing, and I guess I'm no chicken. I'll take the slings and arrows so that at least, in the end, men's topics of importance can be improved. You might want to get that rat problem taken care of. -- Netoholic@ 01:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prince Hamlet was a ghastly selfish drama monger. --Fæ (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prince Hamlet should become a Wikipedia editor. His madness would be no great matter at Wikipedia. There the people are as mad as he. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had said that I would review the subsequent discussion to see whether the project or its deletion nomination was more pointy. Having read the statement by the project creator, and the subsequent discussion, I see that neither the project creator nor the nominators are trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The project creator is making a good-faith mistake that is disrupting Wikipedia. They think that the project will be useful, and so they have created it. It won't be useful, for all of the reasons listed above. This project is a good-faith mistake, but needs to be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: I'm relieved you see this as a good faith effort, but I obviously disagree with it being a disruption or even likely to be a disruption. The project is already proving useful to some editors, who've started marking and assessing articles even though they might not have listed their name as a participant. You simply cannot know if this will be useful or not in the long-term. To assume it will be problematic be seems extremely sexist to me, considering that about 17 women-focused WikiProjects have proven useful and non-disruptive, and have not been subjected to deletion. -- Netoholic@ 18:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: I cannot understate how taken aback I am by this response. It's really frustrating for me as someone who has tried to assume good faith and be patient that you'll eventually get what editors have been saying. The pushback you a receiving has nothing to do with sexism, the bias opinions of others, nor you as an editor (whom, I will repeat myself by saying, is pretty great). There are very good reasons we look like we have more wikiprojects dedicated to women; it's because that men are almost always exclusively served by the parent wikiproject. For example, WikiProject Sports is pretty much is focused on male-only sports, so we needed WikiProject Women's sport to fill in the gaps. It would be disruptive to start a campaign to create WikiProject Male Sports for obvious reasons: it's redundant and unnecessary. Furthermore, tagging Talk:John Adams as a "top-importance FA-class article" to WikiProject Men should be discouraged for the same reasons WanderingWanda was told to not do that by El_C; it's disruptive and distracting. Neto, I'm really not trying to insult you here. Please, just understand that many editors have already explicitly found this to be disruptive, and comments like this are only feeding into that idea. I'm new here, so I may be wrong. However, if I am not wrong, then surely other editors have noticed this as well, and I think that has likely been the case. (edit conflict) –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 03:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL:: men are almost always exclusively served by the parent wikiproject That is a sexist statement if you're presenting as a generality with no evidence, but I'll indulge it. If that statement isn't true, then obviously it would mean that women's WikiProjects are segregating themselves unnecessarily. If it turns out to be true, this statement either represents complacence with a problem that should be resolved by instead by encouraging (or forcing) those general WikiProjects to be more accommodating so that women do not feel excluded (closing the women WikiProjects and sending them to the main one) -or- that men-specific topics need also to be split off these central WikiProjects to balance them (probably just as bad an idea as women segregating themselves). Could it possibly be that there are simply more men playing in professional sports, and -that- fact alone is an external factor which guides the balance of coverage - making it only seem like women are being excluded from a WikiProject? Have you asked WP:WikiProject Sports if they are specifically male-focused and intentionally driving women away? Or, just maybe, is it the existence of WP:WikiProject Women's sport that continues to reinforce their own segregation from the WikiProject Sports? But this is all a red herring, because I am not proposing splitting out any male topics from existing WikiProjects. I am concerned only with segment of top-level, men-specific topics and categories which are currently not being collaboratively edited or organized coherently as part of any WikiProject's main scope. I have no wish to create a WikiProject Male Sport or any other gender-based split-off from an existing topic area. I was not the editor who tagged Talk:John Adams. Stop implying that I did, and stop accusing me of having goals that I've never stated. From the way you talk, which I think is true of others in this vote, it seems like you are projecting all your worst fears about what might happen in the future simply because these are men's topics, and so yes, doing so is sexist. -- Netoholic@ 04:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, Net. What is the difference between a WikiProject Men and a WikiProject White People? This reminds me of someone trying to start a men's student association or a white student association on a college campus. – Levivich 05:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And there's the race card. What took you so long, Lev? As far as I'm know, there is no one racial group called "White", but there are in fact several ethic WikiProjects which may match your interests. To answer your question, I guess its a matter of Men being about 50% of the population, and that there is a segment of topics on Wikipedia which are not being collaboratively edited or organized. Very sexist -and- racist of you to imply that I am a white man out to further white man goals or whatever point you are failing to make. --Netoholic@ 05:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the WikiProject, not about you. (BTW, I'm a white man, not that it matters, but as a white man, I have no race card to play; I have privilege instead.) My point is that we have a WP:WikiProject Latino and a WP:WikiProject Asian Americans but not WP:WikiProject White Americans, and the reason why is obvious, and it applies to WikiProject Men as well. – Levivich 05:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All topics deserve to be improved to their highest level of quality. If you are measuring systemic bias by the raw number of articles we have about certain subjects, then improvement efforts organized by this or any other WikiProject do not affect systemic bias. What's happening it seems, and it was stated by me in my first post all the way up at the top, is that for whatever reasons, men-focused articles are lower quality than their women-focused counterparts. Also, you do not have to like a topic to join a WikiProject about that topic - if you are concerned at all about what WikiProject Men is up to, then join it, track our article alerts, watch over our article improvement efforts - do anything you feel you need to do. Trust me, plenty of people join WikiProjects for things they dislike just so they can keep an eye out on them. It happens a lot in the political sphere. -- Netoholic@ 06:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: [Thank you for the ping] I made sure to choose my words carefully. I said that the tagging of articles to WikiProject Men should be discouraged. (1) I made no implication that you were the one doing it and only suggesting you inform the editor in question that this may be a problem. This statement was a response to: The project is already proving useful to some editors, who've started marking and assessing articles even though they might not have listed their name as a participant. As you did not name the editor in that statement, I did not feel comfortable naming them as well since I am not sure at what level they are aware of this deletion discussion. (2) I just cross-referenced all FA-Class biography articles with All WikiProject Women-related pages to find how many women biography articles are currently featured class. The answer? 50 articles. There are currently 1394 biography articles rated FA-class. Even pretending that 200 of those were just never tagged still means we have over a thousand male biographies with the highest rating the project has to offer. There is no structural deficiencies in our coverage of male biographies. (3) I will respond to the charges of sexism on your talk page. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 14:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: If that 50 number seems terribly low, I think its because you might have made a mistake when counting WikiProject Women and didn't all all count the other 17 women-focused WikiProjects. WP:WikiProject Women's History#Biographies for example has a lot of FA articles that I think you didn't count. I see 112 marked WikiProject Women and another 146 Women's History (some are tagged in both WikiProjects), and I'll let you check the rest. I'm not sure though the point you're trying to make... are you saying that its time for us to stop improving men's biographies, because they are about men? And what at all does that have to do with the men-focused NON-biographies I was talking about? -- Netoholic@ 18:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am bewildered by the volume of comments that can be induced by a "Wikiproject" with one participant and one week of existence. This is the more bewildering since Wikipedia:WikiProject Council is quite dead to say the least and most of the Wikiprojects themselves are not in a better shape. Perhaps, this is a reaction against the portal-MfDs taking the biggest part of the whole MfD process. Pldx1 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Levivich. You are perhaps over-optimistic when saying: we have a WikiProject Asian Americans. It seems that we had such a project, who is now believed to be semi-active, i.e. not really different from deceased. Pldx1 (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know that part of it for me was the reticence to get rid of old WikiProjects after they go inactive. I think that, in general, the community should deleta more WikiProjects and have some sort of criteria for their establishment, similar to the Notability criteria. StudiesWorld (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ritchie333. And aside from the specific issues of this case, Wikiprojects with vast scope but handfuls of participants just clog up talk pages and create unnecessary pseudo-categorisation work. --LukeSurltc 14:38, 21 May 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.