Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women to the Top


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Women to the Top

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A short-lived European project for a few countries that does not seem to have any encyclopedic value. Question mark over notability for over 10 years suggests this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Possibility to trim and selectively merge to Women in the workforce. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - it seems to pass GNG with the sources it already has (significant coverage from two major newspapers and evaluations from the Nordic Gender Institute and University of Gothenburg) and a very quick search for Swedish-language sources returns at least this and this which could maybe be added. And, so far, the article pretty much only seems to have Swedish and English sources - there'd probably be even more coverage in Estonian, Danish, and Greek-language sources. NHCLS (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

--RamotHacker (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)*Delete Simply not notable at all.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Agree that the topic passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sources already in the article.4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2021 (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.