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 no consensus. Good arguments have been made on both sides, and neither side's arguments clearly outweigh the other on quality or quantity. Nothing in this closure prevents normal editorial actions such as merging from being taken. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Male expendability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Seriously WP:PROFRINGE, full of synthesis ("oh, look, Hitler killed gay men, that means he thought men were dispensable") and possibly a WP:POVFORK for Male privilege to justify the snowflake sensitivity of self-styled "masculists". Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. (because this relates to gender studies) --Xurizuri (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While this page could certainly do with some improvements, I do not agree that it should be deleted. Alssa1 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This topic does not appear to be notable. Apart from the atrocious state of the present article, independent coverage in reliable sources appears to be next to nil. The only legitimately scholarly consideration I could find was this paper from 2019 which frames "male expendability" as an original hypothesis of the authors themselves (and thus WP:PRIMARY): [1]. The only other hit on Google Scholar is from 1979, and is completely speculative: [2]. I see nothing like the kind of WP:SECONDARY coverage that would support an article on the topic. Generalrelative (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Like Generalrelative I can only find a single RIS discussing this concept. The discussion on the talk page makes it crystal clear that this is SYNTH, with a loosely related collection of ideas assembled under this title of convenience by a Wikipedia editor. Mccapra (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Topic as a standalone does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Potentially merge the limited reliable content into a broader article like Men's studies#Violence, particularly as the topic (where it's even recognized as a topic) appears to be one of active dispute among scholars. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is one of the few articles on wikipedia that talk about genuine male issues from a male point of view. Citations can easily be added. There are numerous discussions about this, and there is a study on the page related to this. The deletion request seems to be WP:SOAPBOX, and the page clearly isn't about that. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note that presenting topics from a male point of view is contrary to core policies like WP:NPOV. Generalrelative (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in the sense that feminist theory & articles on the site are from the female point of view. However, I retract that part of my statement. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the topic is as described in the article's title then the matter is hardly contentious in many species, see, for example, Ong, Walter J. (1981). Fighting for life : contest, sexuality, and consciousness. Ithaca : Cornell University Press. pp. 52–56. ISBN 978-0-8014-1342-1. But if, as in this article, we restrict our view to the human species (is this allowed under WP:NPOV?) then the concept is unlikely to be acceptable to Wikipedia editors given their demography. Thincat (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the citation, it seems useful to the article and I have no issues expanding this to other species. Preying Mantis are a well known example. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It describes an observed phenomena throughout the animal kingdom, including in humans. Removing reference to it is tantamount science-denial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.58.56 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)— 82.47.58.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's potentially interesting, but the article doesn't discuss the animal kingdom at all. It's exclusively about human society. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is an important article and needs more addition. there's very few men's issue pages left, do not allow deletion based on political bias. Most jobs where people are very likely to die and people usually don't care are jobs with mostly men, Police and military deaths. Darren Dark— Preceding unsigned comment added by DarrenDark (talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC) — DarrenDark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep: There aren't many Wikipedia articles that go into this topic. Furthermore, this isn't soapboxing. Sure, it could be improved and more sources could be added, but that doesn't warrant deletion. User:Yithar (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)— Yithar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep: It’s not a new obscure theory (at least to the extend that I have heard about it at university a few years ago when discussing reasons for emergence of matriarchal cultures in regions with harsh climate) and to be fair it feels as if Orange Mike nominated it for deletion just for ideological reasons (either misogyny or misandry, depending on the intent), not legitimate problems with the subject. Of course this theory has variants that could be seen as fringe. For instance, at least from the 70s there were feminists abusing this observation for formulating theories like need of reduction of male population (and corresponding criticism from the MRA side). However current version of the article does not contain such tropes, and thus needs at most rewriting in a better style or adding other perspectives, not deletion. JaBoJa (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)— JaBoJa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep: The article definitely needs expanding but not deletion, it's very useful when researching sex related issues, the content of the article hasn't been disproved or debunked and it has academic backing. I fail to see reasons for its exclusion. Kindness Seeker Mau (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — Kindness Seeker Mau (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete as synthesis. A cobbled-together selection of ill-informed non-sequiturs that does a desperately poor job of pushing the fringe perspective it attempts to. Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication of sophomoric essays. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with much of what was said above RichmanHopson (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Given the number of low-edit-count WP:SPAs here, including a number of first-time editors, it sure looks like this AfD has been targeted by WP:MEATPUPPETRY. Generalrelative (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Hope I'm formatting ok here. I think this school of thought (male disposability) is deserving enough of a page. It's discussed and cited frequently enough to be considered a mainstream debate. An article on a theory or concept doesn't have to be endorsing that theory, just explaining what the theory is. I think the page is sourced well enough to have a valid case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueorange22 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)— Blueorange22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. This article is just an excuse to push a fringe male-grievance POV. NightHeron (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike theories about men being privileged that totally ignore how men might be disadvantaged and how women might be privileged. Eh? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I concur with those that voted to keep the article on Male Expendability. Men's issues such as this are important to note, and the concept has been discussed by authors such as Warren Farrell.Leavit2stever (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article speaks the truth of matters which are being intentionally suppressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GodOfAllCreation (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — GodOfAllCreation (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. I'm not sure why a few other editors have mentioned having difficulty finding RS on the topic, as I have in a short time found a number of them:

Again, I'm not sure why some editors are claiming to be able to find so few - most of these are pulled from the first few pages of a Google Scholar search. Maybe their search wasn't optimized? Anyway, there are more, but I feel like this is enough to establish that there is enough coverage on this topic. These aren't SYNTH-y uses of the sources, they aren't just passing mentions. The article as it stands now needs work, but that's a terrible reason to delete it. --Equivamp - talk 04:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Equivamp: Thanks for listing these. I did see several of them in my search but not all. Note that many have serious problems as sources, e.g. #2 appears to be self-published, and #3 only briefly considers "male expendability" before rejecting it. #1 reads like a blog post by a very emotionally immature person (and unpleasant colleague!) rather than any kind of scholarly product. #4 and #5 look like decent sources however, and if the article does survive this AfD I hope we can center it around sources of that quality. #7 which was suggested above as well is by the Jesuit priest and English lit professor Walter J. Ong, not exactly the type of expert source we look to for comment on evolutionary biology. I won't go on down the list but my view is that the sources you've provided are hit-and-miss in approximately that proportion. The question then becomes: is it best to build on what exists in the article and attempt to cobble together something notable or WP:TNT and reassess whether an article can legitimately be built out of reliable secondary sources on the topic? I lean toward the latter since I don't see anything of encyclopedic value in the article as written, and I'm still not convinced that the concept meets WP:GNG. Generalrelative (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this article isn't exclusively "evolutionary biology", so your attempt to restrict reliable sources to such is wrong. The article is primarily about an idea, which is quite widespread in the culture and which has attracted different kinds of analysis. Perhaps it is a bad or unfounded idea, in which case this should be made clear in the article. Ficaia (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) The Dennen source is by UG senior researcher Johan van der Dennen, whose work on the subjects of human conflict, human ethology, and evolutionary ecology has been repeatedly published. He is very much the subject-matter expert to which WP:SPS refers, and it's likely his other published work (to which the source I linked refers readers for extended discussion) is also useful to the article. That source in particular has been cited in such high-quality sources as The Routledge Handbook of the Bioarchaeology of Human Conflict.

Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT response to the Gouws source is noted, but it doesn't sound like a helpful, policy-based justification.

Ong was a psychologist whose specialty was the evolution of language. Fighting for Life is the published version of his Messenger Lectures, the "highest recognition of scholarship" by Cornell U.

The question is not about whether the article can be "made notable", as that is not what Wikipedia editors are in the business of doing. The subject (male expendability) is, as established, already notable (regardless of whether there's a consensus on it as a concept). --Equivamp - talk 07:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Equivamp, I'm not going to descend into a personalized debate with you, but I will make clear (because I see that my previous comment left out this obvious fact): If you read the Gouws source (#1) you will see that it is quite clearly PROFRINGE. He is completely transparent about the fact that he is advancing an alternative theoretical formulation which contrasts markedly with mainstream scholarship. And no, the notability of the subject is not already established. That's why we are having a good faith discussion about it. Using the Gouws source in particular in a way that violated WP:FRIND would be against policy. Generalrelative (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So, for whomever comes along to weigh the value of the arguments presented here, a summary of the arguments for why the plethora of sources on this topic do not constitute GNG:

• Some editors stated they could not find any.
• One source by a subject-matter expert might be self-published.
• One article published in a high-quality source by a scholar of great esteem and which is cited in other high-quality sources in the topic area might not be reliable, because the author also happens to be a priest.
• One of the sources might not be reliable because the author would not make a good colleague states that the idea is not the subject of mainstream consensus.

Do I have this about right? --Equivamp - talk 16:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You most certainly do not. This is clearly a tendentious representation and I trust that will be obvious to any uninvolved observer. Generalrelative (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: would you be able to explain your position in a bit more depth then? Your earlier reason(s) for deletion doesn't seem to be accurate from what I've seen/read. Alssa1 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. The key question posed by WP:GNG is whether a topic has received significant independent coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. The burden to WP:PROVEIT is on those seeking to include, and in the case of a clearly notable topic this should be easy to do. All I see here is a bunch of spaghetti being thrown at the wall. Generalrelative (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've already robustly refuted most of the the few arguments you've offered against the selection of sources presented. That you chose not to engage or rebut is your choice, but the discussion did in fact happen. The sourcing is more rigorous than you're trying to portray. --Equivamp - talk 20:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I happen to find myself in agreement with Equivamp. The sources are there, and I don't think your attempt at a rebuttal provides an effective response. Alssa1 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The topic of this article has been discussed in academic literature, such as Expendable and Disposable? Discussing Cultural Exploitation of Men (Weiss 2012) and Sex Differences: Developmental and Evolutionary Strategies (Mealey 2000) Jaqoc (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This also seems to be a case of WP:OBSCURE. Jaqoc (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is on TV Tropes, so I'm not sure it's that obscure. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a well-documented phenomenon. Feminists trying to remove it is their equivalent of book-burning. Science denial, pure and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.230.139 (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — 83.245.230.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I don't think you quite know what science is. You also don't know the political views of others in this conversation. --Xurizuri (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the more angry delete requests are from people who are well known feminist supporters, including OP - who makes direct reference to feminist theory. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As part of an intention to work on this article if it survives this AFD process, I've spent a bit of time collecting further RS on this topic likely to help:

• Baumeister, Roy F. (2010-08-12). Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-975255-3.
• Drummond, Murray (2021-10-19). "Expendable young males". Sport, Education and Society. 28: 17–29. doi:10.1080/13573322.2021.1992610. ISSN 1357-3322. S2CID 239563238.
• FeldmanHall, Oriel; Dalgleish, Tim; Evans, Davy; Navrady, Lauren; Tedeschi, Ellen; Mobbs, Dean (2016-07-08). "Moral Chivalry". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 7 (6): 542–551. doi:10.1177/1948550616647448. ISSN 1948-5506. PMC 4952565. PMID 27478541. Social norms regarding pain tolerance and the notion that women should be protected from harm further confirmed that there is a societal belief that it is more morally unacceptable to harm a female than a male.
• Mangan, J. A. (2013-09-30). Making European Masculinities: Sport, Europe, Gender. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315038520. ISBN 978-1-315-03852-0.
• Aanen, Duur K. (2018-09-25). "The disposable male— the ultimate emancipation of females?". BMC Biology. 16 (1): 106. doi:10.1186/s12915-018-0574-8. ISSN 1741-7007. PMC 6154933. PMID 30249271. (This source concerns insects.)
• Armstrong, Joe. "Treating men as "a disposable commodity"". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2022-01-20.
• Benatar, David (2003). "The Second Sexism". Social Theory and Practice. 29 (2): 177–210. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract200329213. ISSN 0037-802X. JSTOR 23559072.
  • Clatterbaugh, Kenneth (2003). "Benatar's Alleged Second Sexism". Social Theory and Practice. 29 (2): 211–218. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract20032929. ISSN 0037-802X. JSTOR 23559073.
• "High Court Rejects San Diego Men's Rights Group's Challenge to All-Male Draft". Times of San Diego. 2021-06-08. Retrieved 2022-01-20. (Several sources on this topic; see National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System)

--Equivamp - talk 00:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to help more, here's a couple of critiques of the book. [3] [4] And I'll also note that anything by Benatar himself is not independent and needs to be used with extreme caution (WP:RSPRIMARY). --Xurizuri (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've just had a look through those sources, and I have some comments. The first, "Is there anything good about men?" is more accurately a broad discussion of masculism/critique of feminism, which happens to discuss the same evidence as Benatar. The second, "Expendable young males" is a research article (see WP:RSPRIMARY again), and while I can't access the full text, the abstract certainly makes no mention of male expendability (as described in the WP article). The third is a research study (aka primary), and it's only related in that it describes a similar type of evidence. I have no idea how the fourth is related, although I don't have access to it so I could be wrong. As you have noted, the fifth is literally about insects. It doesn't discuss humans. The sixth seems actually related, it doesn't use the exact same term but its the same concept. Obviously, the seventh one by Benatar falls into that same WP:RSPRIMARY category. The eighth one has no issue, it's discussing his book so it's a clear secondary source. The ninth also mentions the same concept. It doesn't discuss it but it's mentioned. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I can respond in full to your comments later, but I believe you are quite mistaken about Benatar's book. It is not, as you have stated twice now, a WP:PRIMARY source. It is a secondary source analyzing many primary sources. --Equivamp - talk 18:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So, I'm not really seeing any justification for exclusion of a source because it is about nonhuman animals. --Equivamp - talk 04:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As WP:PRIMARY makes clear, what makes a source primary or secondary is contextual. In this case, Benatar's book is evidently a primary source for the concept of male disposability; it could be a secondary source if it were synthesizing primary sources discussing the concept. In particular, let's look at how male disposability/expendability is discussed in the book. (I'm using the 2012 release of Second Sexism (John Wiley & Sons).) The word "disposability" or variants (e.g. "disposable") do not appear in the book. "Expendability" is not explicitly discussed in the book, although the concept could be said to appear twice (two places where "expendable" occurs). First, while arguing that male life is valued less:

It has been suggested that the reason why men and not women are sent to war is not that male lives are valued less but rather that too many fatalities of women of reproductive years would inhibit a society’s ability to produce a new generation .... The problem with this suggestion is that instead of showing that male life is not valued less than female life, it (at least partially) explains why male life is less valued. In other words, there is a good evolutionary explanation why male lives are regarded as more expendable.

Second, it is obliquely referenced while critiquing Tom Digby:

[A discriminatory policy] recognizes that men are reproductively more expendable. Given::::::Not only does the book not discuss the concept explicitly, it doesn't reference it as a concept at all. The claim that Benatar is discussing the concept of male expendability in this book would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. (I wrote above that the concept "could be said to appear twice": this is my original analysis of the source, and including this analysis in the article would violate WP:OR.) In particular, we would need a secondary source claiming that Benatar introduced or discussed the concept of male disposability. Suriname0 (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

this, why would Professor Digby not also judge ways in which women were discriminated against to be merely cognitive discrimination, if these ways of discriminating were rooted in a recognition that women are reproductively less expendable?

• We would definitely need secondary sourcing to claim that Benatar introduced the concept, but why would we do that when other publications such as Fighting for Life and The Myth of Male Power predate the first Second Sexism by 10+ years, which itself well predates the book you're quoting? As for sourcing the claim that he discussed it, that is the point of the critique of the article (not the book) that I linked, which compares it with Farrell's book and goes as far as to say they spring from the same basis. --Equivamp - talk 04:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, it sounds like I was confused and that we agree that the Benatar book is not relevant to the article, and that including the full section of description and criticism would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. I removed the section about Benatar from the article, although as you say the critique may warrant a passing mention. Suriname0 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and cut down. Ideally to reverse sexism, but violence against men also suits the topic. Alternatively, it could be converted to an article about Benatar's first book. There are enough RS to establish some form of notability, but per WP:MERGEREASON, it's often beneficial to discuss topics in the context of each other. And the RSs rarely discuss the theory outside of the context of Benatar's writings. Just because one person keeps describing a theory, and other people discuss the primary sources each time it's described, doesn't mean it's then a topic separate to that person's writings. It's appropriate for either a book article or for a very brief overview in a broader article. --Xurizuri (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why 'reverse sexism' and not just sexism? Reverse sexism is just sexism, but with air quotes. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wouldn't be appropriate for the sexism article. As acknowledged in the male expendability article itself, women are affected a lot more, and as such the sexism article is mostly about sexism that women experience. It wouldn't be due to discuss male expendability there, because that article should focus almost entirely on women, in proportion to the focus given in academic sources. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xurizuri: To be honest, I'm not sure what could be a bigger issue than being literally considered expendable, less valuable, and less worthy of life. It feels a lot like male expendability is playing into that decision there. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by "due". Due weight has a specific meaning on wikipedia. It refers to how much something is discussed in reliable sources that are directly addressing the topic. There are a handful of sources discussing male expendability - enough to establish some notability, but not enough to dislodge anything that's on the sexism page, all of which has hundreds of sources discussing it (10 < 200). I will also note, and this may allay some of your concerns, that second sexism is actually already briefly touched on in the sexism article - within the scope of conscription, which again, has far more sources about it than specifically male expendability does. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: because this has become about whether its due to include this in the sexism article, I've notified that talk page of this discussion. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (I commented above). I'm clear the broad topic is notable and a suitable article could be written. Even if the topic is restricted to human beings (as the content has become again after some recent bold edits and reversions) the references given above have now persuaded me that the limited topic is also separately notable. There are some very satisfactory references but the article requires thoughtful editing under calm circumstances and so is not possible at present, unfortunately. I favour the article being extended to the broader topic with human males treated as a particular aspect but that is a matter for the talk page, not AFD. At present the article is in a rather sorry state but the solution should be to improve it. Thincat (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Equivamp above has provided enough sources to show that this issue can be covered clearly with reliable sources. Clearly there are reliable sources on this subject, so we can create an article. Whether the current article is any good is a seperate discussion, and it may well need major improvements. However clearly there are reliable sources that cover this topic, especially in the context of military action and agression. There are reliable sources, so we can have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have to say that some people take a far to presentist view of the issues at play here. Also possible a far too culturally narrow view of the issues. The broad expanse of human societies over the millenia we have records for offer many examples of the levels to which males have suffered high rates of death. At times this has happened because the ruling male elite finds it more to their liking to have a disproportionately large number of females in the population. Living in Detroit, Michigan I do live in a place in the US which may well have one of the most disproportionately lowest male life expenctancies to female life expectancies, in part caused by males much more often being killed in violence than females, the reasons this is so are complex. However I have a broad enough world-wide and historical view to know there are lots of issues at play. I know there is a whole body of literature built around the fear that Asia is on the bring of war because China and India have in place social realities and governmental policies that create a reality where there is a huge over abundance of males in the population, policies at heart driven by familial valuing of males over females, but this situation leads to the government themselves seeing some of their male lives as expendable, and thus a different calculus about war. In the case of China the over abundance of males has only been made worse by late 20th-century government policies, it is a very long standing issue in Chinese society, and the related issue of males not being able to form families and thus these unattached males being seen by various elites as an expendable portion of the society is a long standing phenomenon, and we can find lots of literature discussing this issue. This article needs to be a broad article, both by time covered and by cultural regions covered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to try and formulate that into a section of the page on world events, that might be quite a good addition. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree, that would be very useful. However, please keep in mind the policy on original research - while the connection may seem self-evident to yourself, anything included in the article needs to have a reliable source which directly connects the historical or global statistics and events to male expendability (or a related name, such as second sexism or male disposability). Please also note, that per the policy on primary sources, anything written by Benatar needs to mention it, along the lines of "According to Benetar, ..." or "In his book, Benetar says ..." (while Benetar's book is a secondary analysis of data, it is a primary source about male expendability; see above discussion). --Xurizuri (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this discussion is increasingly getting out of hand. Can we finalise whether we're going to keep the article or delete it? If we choose to keep the article we can then decide how to improve it/whether or not we merge it with another article. Alssa1 (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think this is too big and to important a topic to not have a page on it. Especially when we have so many good sources, including statistical evidence that males are the majority targets of genocides. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Honestly? This sounds a lot like someone doesn't like an idea and therefore thinks there should be no article about it. Doesn't look WP:PROFRINGE, firstly because I have no reason to think the notion is Fringe. Also it seems to describe the notion in a neutral tone and has a bunch of criticism. I've never read anything on men's studies and had never heard of masculism before, but the idea of male expendability (not necessarily in those words) in human societies has always been pretty much blue sky territory and is talked about a lot. Sufficient sources have already been provided, so I'm not looking up for more. Even if there are not a lot of scholarly sources, not everything needs to. The page surely could be improved, and if there are good sources of criticism that show that this is indeed FRINGE... Well, I'd be surprised. But the PROFRINGE problem could easily be fixed by removing any undue weight to proponents and adding more criticism to the lead. VdSV9•♫ 20:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has plenty of sources and I'm sure many more could be added. There's a mix of scholarly (1) and journalistic (2) commentary. As others have said, we're not endorsing the term/theory by having an article about it. Also, the term itself is in widespread use. Ficaia (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of reliable sources in the article itself, let alone those you can find with even a cursory web search. Multiple editors have already pointed this out. While I would not call the article particularly well written, the topic itself is very notable. Calling it PROFRINGE is more a reflection of the nom's politics. Ciridae (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Obvious concept for discussion in the field, and seems like the RS in the article subtantiates it. Also, profringe is unfortunately too often used by editors to discredit things they don't agree with. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. A dreadful mess of a page that would have to be rewritten from scratch if the topic were proven notable and best covered by a stand-alone article (the air of dubiousness about the sources, analyzed above, makes that hard to establish). XOR'easter (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I don't think that the page being a mess is any reason. I have been steadily rewriting it for a few days and it seems much improved. In terms of notability, the page mentions a fair amount of research demonstrating this in both humans and animals. More can be added, I agree. But since there is a tvtropes page on this - I feel it has to be notable. I think only one person was against the sources. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It needs a lot of work, but it's not a WP:TNT case and the topic is notable. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the consensus is "It needs a bit of work, but we should keep it." Since this is tailing off, does everyone agree we should close this? If so, what's the process for ending it? Do we just remove the deletion notice? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely not. This must wait for the seven days and then someone uninvolved can close it. See WP:Deletion process. Thincat (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I couldn't find anything about an end date on that page, so I thought I'd ask. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TiggyTheTerrible: It'll be up to the closer, but be careful taking a broad count of 'votes' (especially if a significant number appear to be WP:SPA) in presuming consensus. But, as we both participated in the discussion, it's not up to us when (and how) the discussion closes. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As others have said better than I could, this has alot of relevance so while it should be improved, I think it's too hasty to delete it. Also, perhaps more can be integrated from other articles about the relevant reproductive behaviors of non-human animals (like this). And also in certain human societies like the FLDS expelling young men to make polygyny less competitive. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is why Wikipedia contributors leave. Reliable sources become reliable only if they confirm the editor’s viewpoint is too often the reason why they get into an article text. Plug in a stack of 25 reliable citations in you wikipedia article and an editor can claim fringe, unreliable, npov violation or plain not with the already cited consensus to veto inclusion of the new citation and any article changes due to the new citation. Many wikipedia articles have primary sources from the social sciences twenty years old and editors ignore reliable academic sources from the last two years contradicting the old source’s conclusions. The primary source and the article remain in favor of the twenty year old conclusions thus excluding any modern academic sources. Article sitting and its ill effect should be curtailed. Poison pill article first paragraphs diminish Wikipedia that they only contain reliable source citations from sources which condemn, refute and disagree withe the article subject. An article, hypothetically, on religion T practiced by hundreds of millions should have first paragraph with content from proponents of and academic commentary with criticisms on it. Is should not have articles with only negative and opposing academic views in it. These are the most egregious types of inability to have a real discussion of what is in Wikipedia articles. Does anyone high up in the Wikipedia organization even try quality control tests of creating a new Wikipedia account, pushing for a tiny change anti the narrative in a more active article by requesting the change on a talk page with multiple reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:5494:2B01:DD85:7C3B (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm seeing a lot of votes by IP addresses and new editors who say it should be included because it's an "important perspective". AfD can't determine what perspectives are important or not. If the phenomenon is not adequately documented in reliable, independent sources, then deletion is the right answer. I'm no scientist, but I recommend using the following criteria for determining the outcome.

Arguments I keep seeing, and their rebuttals

There are lots of sources	Delete votes are biased or censorship	This article is necessary	Deleting will make Wikipedia unbalanced
Are the sources explicitly about male expendability as a phenomenon, or do they just deal with related issues? (This includes "oblique references")	Is your vote based on the idea that deletion is tantamount to persecution or book burning?	Is your vote based on raising awareness of social issues as a criteria for inclusion?	Is your vote based on the existence of other gender-related articles, or the idea that for every viewpoint an opposite must exist?
If you have to use WP:Synthesis to derive broad theories from existing scholarship on other topics, that's WP:Original Research. This is the biggest issue with every Keep vote which points to every phenomena (and even Wikipedia pages!) that could possibly be attributed or connected to male expendability.	If Wikipedia followed this logic, it would quickly become useless as an educational resource.	You're trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS which is admirable but not what Wikipedia is here for.	This is pure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and a logical fallacy.
New and original research is important but Wikipedia isn't the place for it (no matter how much it seems "obvious" or like "common sense"). For example, a source might say that men die from violence more than women, but if it does not attribute this to male expendability than Wikipedia can not make that leap.	Hate to have to say this, but accusations of sexism and agenda pushing are very unfair to the volunteers who dedicate their time to the project	If you're still not convinced, I recommend reading WP:But it's true!	Articles are assessed on individual merit, not in relation to what other articles are included. Wikipedia does not have to give equal validity to all ideas.

If any of the above argument are the basis for your !Keep vote, please consider revaluating it based on Wikipedia's guidelines. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with the possibility always open that it could be recreated in a better form, with better sourcing in the future. (Edit: I also don't have anything against redirecting it as suggested above. For example, Benatar's book seems to be about reverse sexism in general so moving that information there makes sense). BuySomeApples (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BuySomeApples: Many of the delete votes are nakedly about politics, and the ones that are less so are by people who I primarily see enforcing that same ideology on gender based pages across Wikipedia. The citations offered DO talk about male disposability or expendability, by name. If you're going to call out 'righting great wrongs' then that means we need to delete the feminist page mentioned in the main edit request. I feel you are using that page as an excuse to push bias while pretending to push the wiki rules. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think every single !Delete vote by anyone admitting that the article could be improved should be struck for the very simple reason that they have not read or do not have even a very basic understanding of Wikipedia's deletion guidelines. Most of it seems to be a poor effort to disguise their biased gender politics. Ciridae (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the general notability guideline, although the article, despite recent improvement, is still not very good. Cardamon (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find "expendability of men" to be a more productive search term than "male expendability":

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Cardamon (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge with Reverse sexism - Some kind of fringe and obscure theory with nil notability in academic sociology or even mainstream culture. A bunch of poor sources are waved amidst MRA socks crying a predictable river about feminists. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was closed by a non-administrator, which was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 28#Male expendability (closed). I closed this review as follows: "People here mostly agree with the closure, but believe that it should have been made by an administrator and/or with an explanation. Accordingly, per WP:NACD, this AfD closure is reopened in my individual capacity as an administrator, with the request that it be re-closed accordingly."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Using google scholar, The references are not enough to establish notability. The term (Male expendability) is known, but doesn't deserve an article about it until we have a significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources.Charmk (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I think the article needs some work still, but to my surprise I found there does seem to be enough sourcing to support an article about this concept. Reyk _YO! 21:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitely notable, this nomination just screams WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2022 (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.