Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in Christmas Island

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 merge to Christmas Island#Demographics. There seems to be notable content here but no firm argument this can't sit within the overarching article Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Christmas Island

[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)

I can't find any sources about the women on Christmas Island specifically, and the article is referenced only to a now defunct website of a Christmas Island Women's Association, and to a news piece about an event celebrating 8 March on the island. But that's not surprising given that the island has fewer than 2,000 inhabitants altogether. – Uanfala (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect~~Delete~~ I cannot find anything to indicate notability of either Women in Christmas Island or Christmas Island Women's Association. At the best redirect to Christmas Island#Demographics where it is covered already. Aoziwe (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to merge and redirect to possibly, a section in Women in Australia based on the couple of good finds by User:PamD. I see no evidence that the subject is notable in its own right. There are no other articles that I could readily find by state or island, etc. There is, however, solid material here now which deserves its due weight attention in the main Women in Australia article. An alternative merge and redirect target is obviously Territory of Christmas Island . Aoziwe (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Women in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands? PamD 09:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the various links, both red and blue, in the "Women in Oceania" template at page footer and in Women in Oceania#See also. PamD 09:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes I did miss those. But, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I do not see how any of these small "territorial islands" will ever be notable in their own right for such a specific subject. I am not saying that the content is not important, just that it should, and now the other such articles too, in the case of Australia, be included in the main article, Women in Australia. Aoziwe (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have found archived versions of both dead links, and a 2016 ACWW source about the Women's Association. PamD 09:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... And have expanded the article. PamD 09:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what do we end up with? More references to a women's organization in Christmas Island, which is tangential to the subject but not about the subject. Plus, census figures and a report about the social issues behind the low child-birth rates. -The Gnome (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Christmas Island has an interesting history among Australian territories and documenting how women fared through it is a great topic for an article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions are not about what is "interesting" to have in Wikipedia but about verifiable notability. Christmas Island deserves an article in Wikipedia because it is easily a Wikinotable subject. Women in Christmas Island per se as a stand-alone subject does not because it is not. -The Gnome (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the sources are of much use in establishing notability. A one-time celebration of International Women's Day is the best of a sorry lot. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support a merge and redirect (despite the poor title - the only women "in" Christmas Island are dead and buried) to Christmas Island since there seems to be a little info worth saving. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Brilliant work by PamD. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christmas Island. The article is a hotchpotch of unrelated content, with no link but gender. The Women's Association might deserve a separate section in the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The subject itself of women in Christmas Island is as notable as are similar subjects, i.e. "women in Saudi Arabia" or "women in Mexico", "in Italy", etc: Not notable at all. They are not notable per se. There are many notable issues about women in various countries, such as women's rights in Saudi Arabia, violence against women in Mexico, or abortion in Italy. Which is why every such issue does have a separate, stand-alone Wikipedia entry. Lumping together under a single lemma all women of a country would be a serious encyclopaedic lapse, since it quashes peforce the diverse and numerous isseus concerning some individual women, or all women, or specific strata of women. The user desires to check entries generally about women in a country? We have categories for that. Therefore, I suggest we delete the article and manage the separate entries. -The Gnome (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christmas Island. Suggestion amended to facilitate consensus. -The Gnome (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still a bit of discussion going multiple ways towards the closing date.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 23:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christmas Island. This article is short enough that the main Christmas Island article should be able to contain the information in it. Not a very active user (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the work PamD has done has made the article acceptable for Wikipdia standards. Deus et lex (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is notable enough as a standalone subject. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The proposal to delete the article is contrary to policy as there are sensible alternatives which we prefer per WP:PRESERVE. The topic still has more scope for expansion as it seems easy to find more substantial sources such as Christmas Island: An Anthropological Study. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. I think that Christmas Island: An Anthropological Study looks very promising. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Existence of a generic organization does not justify compilation of unrelated content. Can be covered at Christmas_Island#Demographics and Christmas_Island#Government. Nothing in the table of contents of above books suggests such a separate article is warranted. Build it in the main first then prove the need for a split. Reywas92^Talk 18:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, apologies for not being relevant to the afd but don't people live on an island not in one so an article title change may be required? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - agree that "Women on Christmas Island" (or maybe "Women of Christmas Island") is more appropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. also - if I understand correctly this would be Christmas Island's only womem-based article. even nova scotia has [[1]]. I say keep.Grmike (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Keep Deadlinks are not a solid reason for deletion. PamD has made a pretty good improvement effort too, so I think a keep per WP:HEY is the right course. The Antropological study looks like it could be used to improve this greatly, its 200+ pages. I'd also be fine with a merge to Christmas Island#Demographics, but think that outright deletion is nonsensical. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 10:45, 29 April 2020 (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.