Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human figure

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 and redirect to figure drawing as a plausible search term. Cúchullain ^t/c 01:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human figure

Contested prod. I tried cleaning it up first but was reverted twice (and abused) before prodding. Most of the article is Original Research and is mainly the work of two authors. It consists of quasi-scientific statements about the human physique which are not supported by adequate references - the only support cited is a fitness website, an online magazine article and a blog. Overall the article is not neutral and is predominantly sexist in tone: women are built for sexual stamina; "Males generally thump their chest to show potency while females pat their buttocks"; "Females generally hug around the neck of males so as to support their weaker upper body, while males generally hug around the waist of females" and plenty more like that. Generally unencyclopedic and unworthy of WP. andy 09:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this article say that isn't already said in Sex differences#Physical differences, Sexual dimorphism#Sexual dimorphism in humans, and Secondary sex characteristic#In humans? Uncle G 10:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also said a lot better and with proper references. If you take away the stuff that's already covered in those other articles all that's left are some rather sleazy statements about women as sex objects. andy 11:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I dont see any relevance of keeping this article in wikipedia. It has became an article that says differences between sexes than what is human figure.202.41.72.100 11:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete Article doesnt seem to be notable. Its nothing but collection of parts of other articles. says facts that everyone knows already — vinay 11:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- also this seems to be pseudo aesthetics or pseudo arts — vinay 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to figure drawing. The term "human figure" is used in the article on figure drawing ("The human figure is one of the most enduring themes in the visual arts"), and the article is about the human figure or shape. I believe the term "human figure" is used most often in the context of figure drawing. --SueHay 13:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hendry1307 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD is not a pure vote. Please give a reason for your vote. Thanks! --Charlene 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SueHay. --Charlene 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hmm.. Could this maybe be a disambig page that points to the sexual characteristic differences articles, figure drawing, Body image, and the like? — Omegatron 21:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO cross-references from each article is all that's needed, and they mostly exist anyway. Most of these articles are fine as they are, the only problems I can see are with Human figure and Female body shape (also AfD'd). andy 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HoooGraaa! Delete. Well-covered in other articles, as Uncle G says, and what isn't is silly and sexist. 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As everyone else already said this info is already in other articles, but I still liked it. However, delete it.
Delete & redirect, everything here is already covered elsewhere, as suggested above. >Radiant< 21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep added a section to article, please take note. it does not need redirect to figure drawing as Human figure has own identity. It is basic necessary knowledge every common man needs to know, not just artists.122.167.131.81 04:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- note that user Uncle G's statement also implies that the article conforms verifiability.122.167.131.81 04:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the common man really need to know that males thump their chests to show potency? The common gorilla, maybe. andy 07:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you dont see WWE i think :)58.68.87.3 05:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I removed the section just added, more nonsense and no references won't help that article. / Mats Halldin (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but redirect to relevant articles OR Rewrite - I came to wikipedia to look for an article on body shape. The articles mentioned above (Sex differences#Physical differences, Sexual dimorphism#Sexual dimorphism in humans, and Secondary sex characteristic#In humans) do this much better, but when you search on google and in Wikipedia for "body shape" this article and the "female body shape" article come up. They aren't as good as the other articles for many of the reasons mentioned; I agree with the delete and redirect or it needs a substantial rewrite as it probably is a valid topic in it self. (edit: sorry forgot to sign it!) --DomUK 20:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep secondary sex characteristics are read only by medical students and figure drawing is read by artists. but article on body shape is searched(as said by above) by common man and necessary for him to know the basics. dont object single perticular sentences, this is not the stage for that. 58.68.87.3 05:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a needless fork. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it relates form and function of human figure. 122.167.140.17 16:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to impute bad faith to anyone but 122.167.140.17 (active on May 21) may well be the same as 122.167.131.81 (active on May 19) who also voted Keep in this debate, also originates from Bangalore and has a similar editing pattern.

sorry pal, this is not at all vote. we write keep or delete just to simplify reading. please read only comments after "keep"

Agreed, I just undid edits by 58.68.87.3, very few contributors devoted to the article seem to fail to confirm to this pattern.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came to the article by accident, and could not believe how poorly it is written. That is curable, but the absence of facts, and the presence of nonsense opinions may not be. The material is gereally covered over several other articles. Bielle 17:06, 22 May 2007 (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.