Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's anniversaries in 2019


 * 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 Moot. Per discussion below.  Sandstein  12:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Women's anniversaries in 2019

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:POV. Things which "deserve to be remembered"? I don't think this is the right way to add thousands of potential new articles to enwiki, with all things which relate to a subject and which happened 25, 50, 100, 250, ... years ago. We have timelines of women's rights, and if 1919 is an especially noteworthy year for women's rights then a separate article for women's rights in 1919 might at a stretch be a good subject, but this? Please no.

As far as I can tell, we have no other articles in this format (not in itself a reason for inclusion or deletion, just information). Fram (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. Good to see you are still interested in articles about women. I may well have moved this article into mainspace a little too soon. I am in the process of expanding it and would have liked to continue my work. It is a result of discussions on the main talk pages of WikiProject Women in Red and WikiProject Women/Women in Green. There are, btw, similar pages, including 2019, November 30, etc. The year page was intended to be a basis for more detailed pages on the 12 months. We have many timelines of women but until now there have been no articles on the anniversaries to be commemorated. It seemed to me it was useful to bring them together and try to expand on events of 50, 100, 200 years ago, as well as on the dates of birth and death of famous women.--Ipigott (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * An article like 2019 has information on events in 2019, not events from 1919, 1819, ... I don't think we need yet another way to group events together, based on the rather trivial commonality that they happened X years ago. There is only a trivial reason to link together events which happend 50, 100 and 200 years ago, they don't have more in common than events that happened 51, 103 and 207 years ago,so being an anniversary is a rather trivial intersection. The events in 1919 are in many cases related to each other (or have similar causes), but that should be treated in an article about 1919 (or about women's rights after WWI), not in an article about 2019. And we should never editorialize on what should be remembered, celebrated, ... Fram (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to change this page in a subpage of the WIR or WIG green project instead, then be my guest of course. It may be a handy tool to see what you can add to DYK or the "on this day" section on the mainspace, or a place to discuss missing subjects or things to be expanded. Fram (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * From what you say,, it seems to be the title that is bothering you most. Maybe it would go down better for a start as Women's events and developments in 1919. I must say, I am simply amazed at the lack of coverage of women in other sources relating to the year 1919. So we obviously need something along these lines, and not just as a tool to help with creating or expanding articles about women.--Ipigott (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There's a structural issue here. See List of historical anniversaries, for example – a rather strange page that's trying to capture all such events.  There are going to be lots of centenaries in 2019 -- the Bauhaus, GCHQ, the Women's Engineering Society, &c.  There should be some way of organizing and presenting this. Andrew D. (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's a little bit almanacky, but encyclopedic and educational. I have attempted to address the POV and structural issues with a couple edits. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's educational to have timelines, but what's educational about knowing what happened 150, 100 and 50 years ago in one list, which you can repeat every 25 or 50 years anyway? I can create Women's anniversaries in 1969, and include everything that belongs on this page but happened before 1969. And another one for 1994, and another one for 2069, and so on and so on. The possibilities are endless! We don't create articles for this year only, we create timeless articles. An article on what happened in 1919 (if 1919 has special meaning) is fine, an article for what happened 25, 50, 100, 200 years ago in 2019 is not. Fram (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we are on the same page,, and as things are developing, I think the article would be better as "Women's events and developments in 1919". For the time being, at least, I don't see any reason to write articles on the other years you mention. I'll go ahead and move it now which would be far more in line with Wikipedia practice. I really appreciate your advice.--Ipigott (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural close - the page has been moved to Women's events and developments in 1919 and the rationales for deletion present no longer make sense. I suggest this be procedurally closed. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem with such a close, we have articles on "year X in sport" and so on as well, so this is a valid (and valuable) topic now. Fram (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest we move it to 1919 in women's history, which is the standard shape of title. Pam  D  10:36, 2 December 2018 (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.