Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chatanika River Women's Colony

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 of the debate was delete; undocumented = unverifiable, anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chatanika River Women's Colony

I'm putting this up for deletion on the request of Anne Mareck, who wrote most of the article. She says: "I would like to have the whole thing deleted because, while I think the phenonema of the women's colonies of the 60s & 70s bear documentation, I feel that I am violating people's rights to privacy by posting. I didn't think it through well enough when I started it, I'm sorry I did it all wrong, I'll never do it again ((I promise)). Could you please delete the whole mess??" --maru (talk) contribs 18:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete If some sources can be listed on the article, then I think it belongs here. I couldn't verify the article with a Google search, so maybe this is just original research in which case it should be deleted. Unfortunately, I don't think privacy is a good reason to delete the article. It might be a reason to delete the many articles about individuals that redirect to this page. --Bill 18:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is based on a community I lived in in the 70s. The material cannot be 'cited' because no one has ever published on the occurence. I had thought it was important to document one of these women's colonies--it seems like a shame for examples of cooperative ((NOT communal))communities to fade into the undocumented past. Yet I feel my attempt--and I wrote ALL of the article--is very difficult to complete without talking about the individuals involved. And that seems like an invasion of privacy. And yes, I had attempted to delete the articles about individuals which I started, but apparantly I do not have enough understanding of the format to do so successfully. At the very least, I would like to request the individual links be deleted.~afmareck

• • Comment I'll nominate those pages to be speedy deleted--Bill 18:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

hmmm...well I could continue the general article as a basis for investigation of the phenonema. I may be able to find information on other 'colonies' that existed around the same time and work to create some kind of cohesive whole. Yes, if the individual entries could be deleted that would be good. ~afmareck

Delete: Only reference is in wikipedia from google, no reference in Proquest. If it wasn't for wikipedia, it wouldn't exist. Calwatch 06:01, 29 January 2006 (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.