Deletion of Downsizing masculinity

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per #OR
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: obvious  which utterly fails the |duck test despite inclusionists' assertions of the contrary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:DUCK)

Comment: I've tagged the article requesting some expert attention, and created an AFD section at ikiProject Sociology#Articles listed for deletion.  It would be useful for more sociologists to join in here to address the questions of notability and original research
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W)

Comment: the directly cited portions into masculinity.  The sources provided generally seem to generally support the overall topic of the effects of downsizing on masculinity, but it's not clear to me that this is the preferred term for discussing this topic.  Although the lack of thorough inline sources makes it difficult to separate sourced statements from |original research and |synthesis, I think there's a good amount of cited content that could be useful elsewhere, and a merge would leave the history visible for expansion down the road.  And in the interest of full disclosure, I'll add that I was alerted to this AfD by a message on my talk page from
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN)

Comment: All the comments above of the form "''Delete per WP:OR''" all fail  which states "''While this gives editors a clue as to what your reason is, it does not explain any specifics. This does not actually tell us whether the policy is being violated or not. This can be avoided by quoting the specific parts of policy that an article needs to meet, and why you think it succeeds/fails to meet them. Also, keep in mind that articles can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted at all, if the specific problems can be identified and corrected.''".  The original nomination was for notability which was an obvious nonsense as the article already cited 3 good sources and there are many more available.  No-one who has subsequently switched to another reason such as OR has provided any evidence or justification as to why they think the policy/guideline is being violated and why the article cannot be improved to address this.  This won't do.  If you want to justify the extreme measure of deleting such a substantial article then you have to do a little work like reading the article, checking out its sources and then forming a cogent argument based upon them.  A vague wave at a policy is not enough
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE)

Comment: per #OR and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NEO)

Comment: The article cites several references such ''Downsizing Masculinity: Gender, Family, and Fatherhood in Post-Industrial America.'' from the journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Work.  The presence of these references indicates that the accusations of OR and NN are without foundation.  The nomination is therefore either frivolous, careless or based upon some bias.  The article could use some improvement but that is just the usual issue of  and is not a reason to delete.  We might consider merging the material into another article such as Misandry but, again, this is no reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)