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The result was withdrawn after Tokyogirl79 greatly improved the article and clarified the notability of the book. The article is short enough that it could be merged into the related article gender advertisement, but it's also fairly decent stand-alone. Certainly a "See also" entry would be beneficial in each article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Advertisements[edit]

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

Book report, possibly created as a school project. No evidence of notability provided — the sources cited appear to consist of blogs or images. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notability. Wikicology (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am finding some evidence of notability in book mentions like this one, and in academic journals like this one and this one. At the very least the author's study as a whole has been the focus of various papers like this one, although I'm listing that one because it kind of seems like parts of the article may have been paraphrased from this paper. Here are some other sources: ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) Basically it does look like the work is notable, although I would probably argue for an article about Goffman's study concepts as opposed to just the book itself. The book could probably pass notability guidelines but we'd likely end up making an article that would be about the study as a whole either way. However the issue here is that this article is pretty much one person's student paper and would require an almost complete re-write to make it fit the policies on NPOV and take out all of the original research. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I notice that there are two articles, one on the basic concept and one on the book. The book could conceivably merit its own article- I was able to find where Goffman's work on the subject (which always refers back to this book as the example of said work) is considered to be particularly noteworthy and groundbreaking. However at the same time, the two articles are largely the same as one another and I do note that the general article does suffer from some original research and tone issues- although this is due to other editors and may be the reason why the students in this case (they refer to themselves as such) thought that the previous article's state would be permissable on Wikipedia. I've left a note on the talk page and put a huge emphasis on them sending their teacher to the page for educators. I kind of can't help but feel bad for students in situations like this: they were pretty much let loose onto Wikipedia with what appears to be no overview of Wikipedia's editing policies(the sourcing shows fairly good proof of this) or the differences between papers and encyclopedia articles and they're the ones experiencing the sharp learning curve. In any case, I did find enough to where the book would pass notability guidelines, although this may be somewhat redundant to the general article. The only thing that I would say argues for the book to have its separate article is that it did influence other notable people and this section would not fit well into the general article as a whole. I will ask on the applicable WikiProjects for help fleshing out the page with proper sourcing and all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2014 (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.