Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's rights in 2014


 * 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. The topic is clearly notable: inclusion is not relative to other articles. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 02:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Women&

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although many of the facts here are notable per se, and have their respective own articles, the topic "Women's rights in 2014" is not notable. It might be a topic for a magazine like Time, but I don't see why Wikipedia should analyze the events of last year. And I even wouldn't say that 2014 was a significant year for women's rights or feminism. And if it becomes a significant year, then we will know it only in many years from now. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought. Abaget (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I checked the first six sources currently cited by the article, and all of them describe 2014 as an important year for women's rights or for feminism. Therefore, this topic appears to satisfy WP:GNG, as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. (A gender-related topic, hence this delsort here). North America1000 13:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Granger. This is a mature well sourced article on a topic which has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Clearly meets GNG. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What you both mention would be a solid argument, if it were not for the fact that the media seems to call more than one year special, or a turning point: in 2013, in 2012, 2012 II, or 2012 III, in 2011, in 2010.
 * Indeed, the fact that the media named 2014 special, makes the year even more like previous years.
 * At best, mentioning the fact that 2014 is a turning point could be merged in the Women's rights article. The individual facts are already covered throughout Wikipedia. --Abaget (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's possible that enough sources could be located to support the creation of other articles such as Women's rights in 2013 etc, but lack of other potentially notable articles doesn't justify deletion of this article which meets GNG.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you would have to create a lot of articles. There is nothing remarkable in the wording chosen by those journalists. It is only a hyperbolic style. However, there is another way of dealing with this. The events treated by this article are already covered in other articles. If 2014 was special for some reason, then  Timeline of women's rights (other than voting) for example, might be a better place for stating that. No need to create a complete new article with repeated content though. In the form that this article is written, it is just a venue for someone to defend his opinion about how much the feminist movement is making progress.Abaget (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The extensive list of references proves this is a fine topic. Also, of course, the deletion rationale is invalid: Wikipedia has plenty of articles that analyze the events of last year. I give you 2014 in games, 2014 in video gaming, 2014 in philosophy, even 2014 in amusement parks; all of which are parts of series on various years in these topics. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several sources identified 2014 as a watershed year. But even without that, there's no problem in writing articles about developments in women's rights during that or any other year. Sarah (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - [year] in [subject] is a pretty standard encyclopedic article format for big subjects highly visible in current events for the year. Hence we have a whole category, Category:Years by topic, with many subcategories. The most similar are probably Category:Years in LGBT rights. That we do not currently have women's right topics by other year doesn't mean we can't have this one. The standard that would apply is whether there exist sufficient sources showing the article subject as notable (looks to be true) and sufficient material to justify a separate article rather than merge it into a broader subject article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Inspired by this discussion, I've started Draft:Women's rights in 2013 and Draft:Women's rights in 2012. They're nowhere near complete or even ready for the articlespace yet. I'll work on them as I can over the next days, but thought I'd drop a line here in case others want to jump in :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:25, 20 June 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.