Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Goldman: The Traffic in Women


 * 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 Keep and rename to 'The Traffic in Women'. Michig (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Emma Goldman: The Traffic in Women

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be an WP:NOTESSAY discussing an unsourced and unidentified article. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  02:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I disagree with the nomination which appears to be trigger-happy and is unnecessarily harsh, in effect, on a brand new Wikipedia contributor who just started the article.  wp:DONTBITETHENEWBIES, please.  The AFD notice is the first contact given to the new editor.  And it is awful to drag a newbie first to AFD where arcane acronyms are the jargon we speak in.  It would be far better to welcome the person and seek some discussion.  wp:BEFORE was not performed: no searching was done apparently, or the nominator would know more.  The nomination is offbase because what "article" is being discussed is very clear by the title:  it is "The Traffic in Women", a 1910 essay by anarchist writer Emma Goldman (1869-1940).  And, it appears to be a summary of the essay, with appropriate quotes, so it is reasonable that the article carries some of the essay-like tone of the original.  The essay is an important work.  See Category:Essays and Category:Essay collections for context.  Yes, it should probably be moved, to The Traffic in Women.  Yes, for a mainspace article, it should be developed to include secondary coverage, criticism, historical perspective about the essay and its impact.  I did some formatting and other edits to the article.  However, wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP, and tagging, not deleting, is appropriate. -- do  ncr  am  06:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When creating a new article a huge box appears with advice for the article creator. Newbie or not, the advice was not followed. It appeared as some form of essay or homework assignment based on the original unidentified essay. Cudos for fixing it up, but your PoV about this AfD is unwelcome (such as the redirct message you created.)-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  12:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Three days later: while most of the newbie original contributor's words have been changed, he/she did contribute by identifying that Wikipedia really should have an article on this topic, and took a try at it. I think that's significant.
 * My edit summary: "redirect, maybe temporarily, as target should perhaps be moved to here, after AFD if article is kept" is entirely neutral! It just functions to reserve the article name while this AFD is going on.-- do  ncr  am  02:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong delete This is not an encyclopaedia article about the essay, it is a heavily biased and opinionated review. I'd be interested to know in what way the previous editor thinks the paragraph beginning The article or essay emphasizes how women were forced into slave traffic and prostitution... is neutral, encyclopaedic writing rather than pov WP:OR. The rest is much the same, no real facts, just a pov essay Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I've removed a spam link to a commercial sales site (Amazon) Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Further comment In an effort to be constructive, I've removed the paragraph that I singled out above. It's clearly an unsourced and highly pov personal opinion about Goldman with no relevance to the article itself Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Further commentThanks to User:Bosstopher, I think this now meets our criteria. I made a few more edits, but just minor stuff. The article just needs moving to the correct title, but that can wait until we are done here Jimfbleak - talk to me?  17:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and edit to be more encyclopedic. Article is about a notable historical essay and is of decent length with references. Language can be improved to be less POV but I see no good reason to throw the whole thing in the bin.Storeye (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article upon which this essay is based doesn't appear in the main Emma Goldman article and so I am unconvinced of its notability. Even if this article weren't an essay, the lack of notability means it should be deleted. The fact that its author is a newbie is unfortunate but irrelevant. Ca2james (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia is not written on paper there is no need to pick which works are the best or favorites in order to just give a representative sample of an authors work. As long as the work is well documented and discussed in reliable sources then it meets our notability guidelines. It is quite possible that an authors work will fall in and or favor over the years, or be rediscovered many years later. So, the correct way to determine notability is by the existence of reliable sources that give us enough material to write more than a one of two sentence summary. That is clearly the case here. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ca2james, the essay is from a collection called 'Anarchism and Other Essays' which is the first work listed under 4.1 Books written by Emma Goldman. Storeye (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional Strong Delete This is by a new editor, who's done just this article. It is a strongly worded recapitulation (bordering on a rant), which isn't that much shorter than the original essay. It's the editor's soapbox. This, IMLTHO, needs to go. If the editor or some interested party would care to shorten the article to neutrally worded synopsis, then let it stay. The full essay can be linked at the bottom of the page. Tapered (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article in its present form today as I comment is an acceptable new article about an essay from a notable writer. Thanks to those who those who edited it to improve it. This article is exactly the type of article that Wikipedia is lacking and can't not be a complete reference until we add more articles like this one. As always, the the article should be edited to improve it instead of deleted if it is written in a way that does not make it meet the NPOV policy or is not encyclopedic in tone. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename to The Traffic in Women. I've rewritten the content summary, and added a few examples of its influence. I hope I've addressed all the concerns mentioned above. Bosstopher (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, strongly agree with analysis by, above. Thank you very much to for the improvement efforts. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to The Traffic in Women. Essay from notable author, and the page has been cleaned up significantly, making the nomination reason no longer valid. Comment: this article is not linked to in the article Emma Goldman, but it should. ~EdGl  !  04:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. Seems to be one of Goldman's more notable essays, judging by the newly added content and sources. The article has certainly been improved significantly since the deletion nomination. Kaldari (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, easily meets WP:GNG, a quick google search brings up numerous books and academic works which discuss and/or cite this essay. Article could be renamed or a couple of redirects created pointing to it.Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. Notable essay with ample discussion and analysis in peer-reviewed journals. Much thanks to those who improved the article. gobonobo  + c 09:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. I think it has all been said above already. Carrite (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per all of the above considering the improvements to the page since nomination. Looks to pass WP:GNG. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:48, 29 March 2015 (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.