Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in Yugoslavia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Yugoslavia[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article has no inline references, it has now been tagged with five major issues, and will continue to act as a magnet for controversial and biased polemics such as the ones at the end, unless we invoke WP:TNT or adequately source everything that is to remain herein. Elizium23 (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, non-neutral article, written from a perspective of one single book as a source, with absolutely no inline citations. Fbifriday (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see that this article needs a lot of work, but deletion is not cleanup WP:DINC and therefore for a notable topic (see WP:GNG, we should make the effort to improve it. We should consider also that we have comparable articles for most countries. And Wikipedia has mechanisms for removing specific problematic content. Evidence of notability of the topic:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb010386/full/html?skipTracking=true
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12347863/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080231259500131
https://www.citsee.eu/citsee-story/becoming-citizens-politics-women%E2%80%99s-emancipation-socialist-yugoslavia CT55555 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, we should not consider that we have other comparable articles for most countries. The article as written is biased, written from one POV, and would require a complete overhaul to balance it and add new content and sources. WP:TNT it and start over. Fbifriday (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about WP:WHATABOUT - although that is an essay, an opinion, I respect it. But to say the essay is biased, is to assume bad faith. Please also consider that it might be not biased, and perhaps just at odds with your perspective on the subject. It includes quotes and perspectives from various scholars, and I've added in citations for most of them between your comment and this one, so it does include various points of view. I think the article has been over tagged. It does need some work. WP:TNT is another essay, one that I reject. It's easy to make bold improvements on wikipedia, I don't accept that it's necessary to delete things to improve them. If it needs a complete overhaul, I encourage others to also edit the article and overhaul it. Again, deletion is not cleanup. You should really be trying to argue that it's not a notable topic if you wanted to delete this, once I said it's a notable topic, that warrants a reply. Pointing out weaknesses is confirming that you think deletion is clean up. CT55555 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/notification: I'm going to try and get some help improving the article: Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration CT55555 (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article needs a lot work. I easily found things like this news article [1] from 31 Oct 1975, titled International professional woman describes women's roles in Yugoslavia. The United Nations website has articles to search through as well. Digging through everything and rewriting the article will take significant work. Dream Focus 18:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, including due to the non-encyclopedic style and significant verifiability issues. WP:GNG also does not seem clearly supported at this time. There are sources about aspects of the topic, including via JSTOR, e.g. Women in the Yugoslav National Liberation Movement: An Overview, Women, Conflict, and Culture in Former Yugoslavia, and Becoming citizens: the politics of women’s emancipation in socialist Yugoslavia (University of Edinburgh), as well as Springer, e.g. The Woman Question and the First Wave of Feminism in Yugoslavia, The Strange Case of Yugoslav Feminism: Feminism and Socialism in “the East” and Cambridge: Women and Yugoslav Partisans. There is also Feminism and Yu: Feminist Magazines in Yugoslavia (Ms. Magazine), Serbs 'enslaved Muslim women at rape camps' (The Guardian), Feminism and violence against women in Yugoslavia during state socialism (T&F), Assault on the Soul: Women in the Former Yugoslavia (T&F), Women in Black Against the War in Yugoslavia. Sources could be used to improve the Yugoslavia article, until a WP:SPINOFF is supported. Beccaynr (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is clearly established by sources cited here and a cursory look on Google Scholar. The question remains whether the article is beyond repair, and whether a WP:TNT would be beneficial. I'm not seeing that here, I think the article has improved from hopeless to bad since the nomination. There are four decent sources. I don't see clear mistakes in the parts that are not yet cited. I'm more inclined to support TNT deletion when it has become really difficult to move foreward on an article, for instance because its made up entirely of unreliable sources / text-source discrepancies. I don't see that here. Femke (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a clear mistake in uncited parts of the article when there are descriptions of women as a monolith, e.g. "They hoped to become more economically independent", "They resisted the unjust wars". Also, in the WP:QUOTEFARM section of the article, the inclusion of "Romanian women are prostituting themselves for a single dollar in towns on the Romanian-Yugoslav border" seems problematic, and it is introduced as "The results of reactionary, right-wing measures adopted by the new nationalist states are vividly described by Drakulić." If there is WP:GNG support for the broad general topic instead of various aspects, I think research should be conducted first, then the article written, instead of an approach that may create further WP:NPOV issues in the structure of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are women everywhere, and many of them and many groups of them are deserving of articles, but if we just do "Women of X" for every country (and why not states, provinces, cities, professions, fields of study, etc.), it could get crazy. And should the article "Women of X" be a discussion of the state of women of X or a list of prominent women of X? It's hopelessly vague and invites bloated, unfocussed garbage. Jacona (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure, the topic is very broad. Lightburst (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename History of women in Yugoslavia. Also could use better sources, which do exist. I agee with and adopt the reasoning of User:CT55555 WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it were to be renamed, the entire Category:Women by former country would need to be renamed as well. I don't think any such renaming is necessary. -Vipz (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TNT-ing it may be a necessary step towards recreating a better article, though I'm not sure if anyone will be willing to do that. Beccaynr has laid out a good chunk of reliable sources. -Vipz (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my research, I think there are various aspects of the topic that are notable, e.g. Feminism in Yugoslavia, and the book How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed (the sources in this newly-added section of the article do not all appear to be related to the book, but it appears to have WP:NBOOK notability, e.g. Kirkus Reviews, Prairie Schooner, Social Indicators Research, Le Journal des Alternatives, Foreign Affairs capsule review). For the other book cited in this new section, Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism, it also appears to have WP:NBOOK notability, e.g. Guardian, New Yorker, Vox, see also Book Marks for additional reviews. A TNT approach that may work well for this broad topic is to instead develop the notable aspects based on the available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing its notability, but the issue is that the way the article was written was from one source's perspective. It would require a substantial overhaul to even tell this one from more than one perspective, rewriting most of the article to introduce the new sources and material, while balancing it with the material already there. A TNT approach allows the article to be rewritten from scratch, to include all viewpoints. It would also allow someone to start the article in a draft, then simply move it here when it is ready to go. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the motivation to create Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism! User:Beccaynr CT55555 (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think WP:TNT would be the best approach for this article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails the criterion of sourcing. All we have as citations are Barbara Jancar-Webster's book on Yugoslav women during the period 1941-45, a very limited one, and then a review of that book; a piece titled "Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism", which, apparently someone wants us to take seriously; then a book about gender politics in the Balkans. That's about it. Perhaps there is substantiation behind the void. For sure, it's best to start all over. -The Gnome (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence is a notable book by a notable anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee that deals with women's rights and role in society. So, I doubt that I'm alone in indeed wanting you to take it seriously. Ghodsee is a professor of Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. CT55555 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So...you're discounting a book from a PhD because she titled it to attract attention on the shelves? FrederalBacon (talk) 19:07, 14 July 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.