Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in Guam History

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 speedy keep‎ . Per WP:CSK#1, this nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding !votes other than opinions in favor of 'keep'. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Guam History

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that the article meets WP:GNG. See also previous discussion in talk page. :3 F4U (they /it) 23:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, and United States of America. :3 F4U (they /it) 23:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not !voting on notability (in this comment), but surely an alternative to deletion here could be merging to Women in Guam? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily fair to say "there are no reliable secondary sourcing discussing the list in question"-- I found some coverage in the Pacific Daily News ([1], [2]) though that by itself probably doesn't establish notability Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those. I had not seen them, and it's really nifty to read those. Nice. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was poor choice of words on my part. What I meant to express, was that I couldn't find secondary sourcing in my attempts to find them. I just saw the recent edits and the clarification that the subject of the article is a book/exhibit, rather than the project of a website helped clarify what I was supposed to be looking for. I'll withdraw my nomination under WP:BKCRIT since there is secondary sourcing on the subject. :3 F4U (they /it) 23:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the people can be added onto List of people from Guam given that they all appear to be individually notable, but I'm not sure that the existence of a publication about women in the history of Guam would match the scope of the Women in Guam article. :3 F4U (they /it) 23:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. I think the book has at least marginal notability, given the coverage in local news sources. At the time of the nomination, the lead was a bit confusing and it wasn't clear exactly what the topic of the article was. I've now clarified that this is a book (and a photography exhibit) published by a nonprofit associated with the University of Guam. Even if we decide the book is not notable, the list should be kept (perhaps in Wikipedia space rather than article space), as it's a valuable redlist. pburka (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:BKCRIT. This book has coverage in The Guam Daily Post, Pacific Daily News, and KUAM-TV. TJMSmith (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and regardless of the outcome, thanks to those who have edited the article today. Until I read the comments above, I was unaware this is a book. I had the idea that Guampedia was just a web site. This has been enlightening. — Maile (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per TJMSmith. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination appears to have been a misunderstanding.--Ipigott (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per TJMSmith Suonii180 (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a book, not a list, and clearly notable.Pam D 06:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the first column of the list should be in bold, per MOS:BOLD, but don't know enough about table formatting to fix this. Could a tables geek please pop over to the article and fix this? Thanks. PamD 08:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.