Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woman/1911 Britannica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 8 "delete" votes, 2 "merge"s and 1 "keep". However, I find some of the delete votes to be at odds with our policy and practice of preserving all edit history. Since this content was used to create at least one other article (and I believe contributed to more), I am going to exercise my discretion and keep this as a redirect. Yes, there are other ways to preserve GFDL but with the confused history of this discussion, this is the easiest. Rossami (talk) 8 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)

[edit] Woman/1911 Britannica

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-02-04. The result of the discussion was "move to a sub-page of Woman". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Woman in 1911 Brittanica.

Fork of Woman. Radiant_>|< 10:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not appropriate for a {{CURRENTYEAR}} encyclopedia. Wikisource maybe??. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I was the original nominator, and I still don't see why we want to keep Brittanicacruft which nobody can be bothered to make meaningful and update. RickK 20:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 21:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki then Delete - I see absolutely no reason why we would want to keep this when we have a much better article ourselves. If anyone sees anything useful in this and wants to put it into our article, that's fine, but they've had long enough to do it and this ugly subpage should be deleted. -- Jonel | Speak 23:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote modified to include transwikification, after seeing that Wikisource does not have this. Jonel | Speak 20:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • You might want to modify your vote back. As Edeans noted in the original VFD discussion, this is less than half of the actual "WOMEN" article in 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. (Estimation by scrollbar indicates that it is merely the final 2/5ths.) The presence of the same OCR artifacts (such as "M dkln" in the second paragraph) indicates that this is a straight copy of the OCR scanned versions, with the attendant problems thereof that are noted at Wikisource:Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica. Uncle G 16:56, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  • Redundant. Delete, possibly merge some of the contents into the main Woman article (without a redirect). - Mike Rosoft 23:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redundant, dated, parochial. Note that the previous VfD discussion ended up "merge/delete", not "move to subpage", although that was what was done. Do one last check for any useful material, and then Delete. -- Karada 23:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Yes it is very outdated. But the material, after proper filtering, is appropriate for an article on the historical view of women at that time period. So I think the content can be raked through for a history article. — RJH 14:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge any suitable material to an appropriate history article, as per RJH. — P Ingerson (talk) 14:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's already a subpage, and wikis don't need any arbitrary timetable governing how and when volunteer editors use valuable public domain data in articles. Show where this data has been merged into historical articles, and I'll change my vote. --Unfocused 15:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Talk:Woman/Archive 2#subpage_Woman.2F1911_Britannica. Uncle G 16:58, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
      • I see you've pointed me to where this data could go, but I don't see much from the article that is nominated VfD. Is there a full 1911 Brittanica online that this could be retrieved from later, assuming it is deleted from here? I checked Wikisource and couldn't find this as an entry there. Keep, or Transwiki to Wikisource if not kept. --Unfocused 17:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • User:Sam Spade says at Talk:Woman/Archive 2#subpage_Woman.2F1911_Britannica that he has already tried merging the info from Woman/1911 Britannica. You can see his attempts starting here. After completion the Legal rights of women historically section was moved to a new article, by User:213.51.209.230 which seems unsubstantially changed today. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • A few editors' efforts, while fully appreciated, don't show the full the ability of the wiki. This article is probably in the current state because it was shuffled off to a subpage, instead of placed in plain view and edited on directly. With the copy & pastes of only the edits done on it, I can't say for sure where I would find this in its original form in the page histories, other than this article. There is a lot of remaining content of value. Again, I ask, is the 1911 Brittanica on Wikisource or somewhere else online where this could be as easily accessable to someone editing and/or reading Wikipedia? --Unfocused 20:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes. Uncle G 16:56, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not appropriate for a current-year encyclopedia. Do we begin 1911 articles for every subject there is? --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.