Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women pioneers


 * 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   delete.  Sandstein  21:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Women pioneers

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

Seems to be a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well as being listcruft. Tyrenon (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of female pioneers. I believe such a list would be justified under WP:CLN.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of the first female holders of political offices. That list and its linked sublists already include each of these people and many, many more; there's no need to duplicate the information here. I can envision this title's being used for an article about the role of women in the settlement of virgin lands, but anyone who wants to write that article (and to use this title) is free to overwrite the redirect. Deor (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. The name is so generic that I doubt a comprehensive list is possible.  Specifically, politics is far from the only pursuit in which there have been woman pioneers (and hence a redirect of this title to politics is inappropriate). There are female aviation pioneers, pioneers in science, education, and innumerable other areas, etc.  In fact, when I saw the title, I thought it was refering to the women who accompanied their husbands on the Oregon Trail.  If someone thinks they can accually attack such a monumental compilation, more power to them, but as it contains nothing unique, and only the smallest subset of the topic, I don't think the current contents merit a page, nor do I think it is the kind of thing that will expand into a good page, while it is likely to attract OR and POV. Agricolae (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. I created this page because I looked in Wikipedia for something similar and it didn't exist. I needed this information for my work (I am a journalist) and I think many people can find it useful - once it evolves. Eventually it could be broken down in categories (and perhaps some categories already exist). Very often you need to know "who was the first person to do this" - and that information is relatively easy to find. But if you need to know who was the first woman (or algerian, or african) who did something, that information is absolutely impossible to find unless someone collects it first. Google doesn't discriminate between female and male names! I only listed politicians but it is obvious from the title that its content should go beyond that. It was a start - I thought this was the way Wikipedia worked: you build on everybody else's work. Jvmalheiros (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  10:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In theory, this is how Wikipedia works, but this page isn't even a work in progress. It is as if you had created a page entitled History of the Universe and given it just four events from the 1970s, then left it for everyone else to complete.  A page needs to make some attempt at covering the topic, even at the start, or it should have a less ambitious scope.  If you leave the hard work for someone else, it is likely no one else will want to do it either, and the supposedly comprehensive page will remain in such a sorry state. Even with participation from others, it will likely become a completely indiscriminate collection, much of it based on original research. Agricolae (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Jvmalheiros provides a cogent reason for its retention. The politics section may indeed duplicate List of the first female holders of political offices, but that is a reason for merging the articles - possibly that one here, rather than vice versa.  The article is indeed a list and intentionally so.  Accordingly it should be renamed to "list of ..." Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, list with arbitrary and badly-defined criteria for inclusion. Determining membership violates WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, way too indiscriminate a list. There are countless things that can be done, and surely by far the most can be done by women too. Therefore, the simple fact that some woman was the first woman to do something is not automatically notable. J I P  | Talk 13:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteAt its best it will be an "indiscriminate collection of information" which is what Wikipedia is not. The title is especially deceiving, it sounds like it's about Little House on the Prairie.  There are several "List of first female xxxx x xxxx" and "List of the first female xxxx" so at least stick to one of those formats for title if kept.  Also it is frequently a matter of opinion who is the first female to achieve something.     It also implies that there is always importance to being the first female to do something, which is usually but not always the case.  Perhaps a list of "list of first female xxxx" lists would be more appropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2009 (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.