Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya women
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep, with possible merge. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Maya women
Most likely original research. Redirect to Maya civilization. Owen× ☎ 05:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak merge. The article does contain in-text citations that are complete enough to construct the missing bibliography. It's a close call between this and redirect. I'm going with merge because Maya civilization has no discussion of gender roles. This seems to be college level writing in need of light grammatical edits. Durova 06:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Maya civilisation. Sources are provided and it is just a matter of wikifying and merging with the Maya civilisation article. Capitalistroadster 09:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - Owen×, this is Articles for deletion. If you don't believe the article should be deleted, don't bring it here. Be bold and merge and redirect on your own. -- Plutor 16:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I would have done had I thought it needed to be merged. However, since I proposed removing all of this article's contents and turning it into a redirect, I wanted to garner the opinions of others who are hopefully more familiar than I am with the subject matter. When it is a topic with which I am familiar, I am plenty bold. :) Owen× ☎ 16:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Let's plase not get into reprimanding nominators. After all, a nomination is not a vote, and it's possible to think that an article should be redirected but recognize that some other folks (like me) will think it should be deleted. In my case, I think a redirect without merge is better, as I didn't see that much content to merge. However, I am thoroughly content with a judicious merge and redirect. There is a high degree of original research mixed in with the referenced material. Geogre 20:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, Geogre. I didn't see Plutor's comments as a reprimand; we often see nominators not voting at all, and there may be a case for using a {{merge}} tag in a situations like this. However, when there is substantial text at risk of being scrapped (either by deletion or redirect), I prefer bringing the issue to a wider audience. BTW, congratulations! Today marks exactly two years since your first edit. Owen× ☎ 21:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh? Poo. Well, there were about 6 months (ok, maybe 3) as an IP before that, when I was sure that getting an account would get me spammed. All that time, and all those articles I did, and all those articles I undid.... 2 on Wikipedia is like 40 in human years. Geogre 14:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, Geogre. I didn't see Plutor's comments as a reprimand; we often see nominators not voting at all, and there may be a case for using a {{merge}} tag in a situations like this. However, when there is substantial text at risk of being scrapped (either by deletion or redirect), I prefer bringing the issue to a wider audience. BTW, congratulations! Today marks exactly two years since your first edit. Owen× ☎ 21:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, with changes. Agreed that the material, appropriately rewritten, could be merged into Maya civilization article, to this latter's benefit as it does not presently cover this topic. However, I think that the general subject area is notable enough, and one which is seriously studied, so as to warrant (in addition) standing on its own. It would need to be retitled, I'd suggest something like Gender roles in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, to broaden the field of study but still focus on a region and time period with certain unifying characteristics. A restructure to remove OR-type statements, fix references, and a general wiki-styling is also required. I don't have the particular references cited in the text to hand, but I know of a few similar ones; if you allow a day or two I will see if a start can be made on its revision.--cjllw | TALK 22:42, 22 November 2005 (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.
