Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archaeological Evidence of Gender in Central Otago Mining Communities


 * 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. Merging can be done at the discretion of the editors, and the article can be listed at WP:PM. After that, what is left can be speedied as housekeeping, if linked to this AfD Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Archaeological Evidence of Gender in Central Otago Mining Communities

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a contested prod. I'd like it to get a wider hearing at an afd, because I'm not so sure it is a personal essay. I can't work out if it is a suitable topic for an article or not, and would like that to be better discussed than the article simply lost through the prod process. Hiding T 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not so much an essay as a survey of research, but the topic itself is not encyclopedic. Some of this could be used as sources in Central Otago Gold Rush, which at present has negligible cultural information about the miners. If the gender of the Otago gold miners is notable, which I doubt, it is only notable enough for a mention in that article. The central conclusion, "This archaeological evidence provides information which suggests that women played significant labour and social roles within mining communities," is a great topic for an archaeological survey article, but really doesn't seem that unexpected such that it would merit an entire encyclopedia article.   --Dhartung | Talk 17:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge *content* to Central Otago Gold Rush (with appropriate cleanup/wikification of course). The *contents* of the article appear to be fundamentally sound (and all-in-all, I think its a commendable first contribution), but several conclusions (including the title) are patently WP:OR. The bulk of it would however (I think) contribute towards improving/expanding the 'Central Otago Gold Rush' article, incorporating the material on the "petticoat pioneers" within the framework of a more general "Social structures" (or whatever) section. The lack of any mention/link to the 'Central Otago Gold Rush' article suggests that the new editor might not have been aware of its existence. I've posted a request for content-salvage to Talk:Central Otago Gold Rush. Too bad the edit histories can't be merged in this case. The new editor should be encouraged to contribute further. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete We are seeing a number of these school papers, and we need a rule of some sort. the manner of writing is not encyclopedic, but yet its not exactly OR--it's a summary of other people's work. They're too specific, but I'm reluctant to say that we don't want detailed articles.Merge is a possibility, but we'd actually include almost none of it. Can anyone find something specific as a criterion?DGG (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.   — gadfium  19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Selective Merge to Central Otago Gold Rush - there is some good, well-sourced material in there. dramatic (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Selective merge per Dramatic, or failing that, rewrite as part of a more all-encompassing History of gold mining in New Zealand. Too much good stuff here to waste it with a deletion. Grutness...wha?  00:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support a rewrite along these lines, making it a more general mining history article and removing the specific gender related content. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't tell if this is someone's serious school report, or a spoof article along the lines of "Marxist Influences in Ferris Bueller's Day Off".  But either way, not encyclopedic. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's well-referenced, and is definitely not a spoof. Having said that, as I pointed out earlier, merging or rescoping this makes a lot of sense. Grutness...wha?  02:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Selective merge per Dramatic as Grutness said. Mathmo Talk 02:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Selective merge as others have said, there is good information here that should be kept. I think it makes more sense in the main article Central Otago Gold Rush than to be a separate article. Aleta  Sing 21:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to main article about the gold rush, as others have said. It was interesting information, however an encyclopedia article needs to be about a topic, not the archaeological evidence about the topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   —Aleta  Sing  16:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.