Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in World War I


 * 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.  Singu larity  01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Women in World War I

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

This article is written like an essay, has no context, no references, nothing linking to it. The content is in this way not suitable for an article, it is partly and could fully be covered in World_War_I. Shoombooly (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge content into World War I. This is notable information, but it is indeed written like an essay and does not merit its own article. Happyme22 (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete  this is an important topic, unfortunately, the authors of this article and the Women in the First World War article have done a poor job of documenting something which deserves a well written article. --rogerd (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My only reservation about keeping it is that someone is going to have to do the work of writing a good article about this topic. --rogerd (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:IMPERFECT our method is to improve faltering starts rather than to delete them. This topic is hugely notable and there are entire books upon just a fraction of it.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the article is in very poor shape, but the topic is highly notable and it's better to have an article people can work on than nothing at all. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Merge, and Overhaul At a minimum we will need to merge Women in the First World War and Women in World War I into a single article, since two article on the smae topic and sharing the same name aren't permitted on Wikipedia. As to keeping the page: yes we should per the previous keeps, and it shouldn't be too hard to find sources for the information presented here in. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Nah, the other one is just a list. Rename it accordingly. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with WP:IMPERFECT. Women did play a big role in World War I, and it could be expanded to a great article. I think this is a great idea for the encyclopedia. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 10:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article does need working on, and perhaps a merge with Women in the First World War is required, but the subject is far too important to remove from Wikipedia. Markb (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Okay, who wants to take the lead and start the rewrite? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, still, there now are 2 articles with basically the same name and totally different content, it's confusing at least. Consensus is going to be keep it seems, I just hope someone picks up the glove and merges and rewrites the articles. Also, it could be covered in the general WW1 article (better than is done right now anyway).Shoombooly (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is part of a series about women in warfare from the earliest times. As such, merging it to a general article would defeat the purpose. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If it is part of a series, why is the article orphaned? Shoombooly (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, no merge necessary, and source as needed. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete "During World War I, women had a big role to play. Coal was necessary in Britain, in homes, factories and offices and public buildings and women helped to mine this coal."  Who wrote this, an 11 year old?  The consensus seems to be "It needs a lot of work and I sure hope someone will do the job."  A worthwhile topic, maybe so, but there's nothing to praise in this article.  Mandsford (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps it was written by an 11 year old, what's wrong with that? Do you believe there should be an lower age limit for Wikipedia Editors? Markb (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that's a topic for another debate. Especially since we don't know the age of the writer. The point is whether or not it's worth keeping a very poorly manufactured article about an important topic. Personally I think it's better to not have an article at all, than having one that gives bad information. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a random collection of articles of poor quality. If no article exists on the topic, chances are someone will eventually write one, again. Why is keeping the bad article better than having no article at all on the topic? Is the aim of wikipedia to have as many articles as possible? Or to have as many good articles as possible? Quantity over quality? Hmmm... Shoombooly (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep Reasons cited by the nom are reasons to add cleanup tags and do not fall under AFD nomination rules. Jtrainor (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Colonel Warden and Obento Musubi that WP:IMPERFECT is an important policy that deserves respect, which is made easier in this case because the subject is so important and truly worthy of being developed. I don't see it as relevant here to try to foresee the future and guess how quickly this might happen. Also, I think it would be a good idea to merge Women in the First World War into this article. True, it's "just a list", but it has data and that should be preserved if possible. --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:26, 1 June 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.