Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in the Montana government

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. ✗plicit 12:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Montana government[edit]

[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)

This article appears to be written for the purpose of an academic essay. Much of the content is based on original research, and while some of this content is salvagable and likely can be moved into Montana State Government, I'm not sure most of this is encyclopedic. There hasn't been any discussion input on the talk page about this. No other articles (that I can find) exist for the other 49 states. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Montana. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My sense is this article is salvageable. The tone of the prose needs to change, but the material is good. Enos733 (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Heavily based on original research and reads too much like an essay. I agree that whatever salvagable content exists can be merged into Montana State Government. Sal2100 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Totally salvageable, with room for meaningful expansion. I've now deleted some of the worst offending original research statements and added a few additional facts with citations. Further fixes still needed but happy to keep fixing. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have deleted and edited further, and caught a few glaring errors. Suggest renaming this page to "Women in Montana state government". Cielquiparle (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the outcome, further suggestion is contact the instructors of this Wiki Education course at Rice University (@DZOBrien and @Ian (Wiki Ed) to inform them of the problems with original research occurring with this and other articles, such as Women in Texas government. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I don't think the original research and essay-like tone is an issue now following all the fixes (and deletions). The subsequent discussion on the Talk page all has to do with the scope of the article and whether it should be merged with the main Montana state government page. If that is the case, I suggest closing this AfD and changing it to a Merge discussion. Or, perhaps it is an issue that can be addressed over the course of normal editing and expansion. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an essay and I do not believe it can be salvaged under the current title. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article presents an interesting history which is well within the bounds of an encyclopedic article. While further improvements are welcome, arguments such as it is an essay or there are no similar articles for the other states are not valid.--Ipigott (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate as to what exactly is interesting? The majority of the content is just a list of the first women to hold specific elected positions within the Montana govt. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting is not the standard for an AFD. The question is does the topic meet our notability standards. Women in state government is a well-researched area (see the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers). In Montana specifically, there are several articles (from the Women's Suffrage Movement in Montana [1]) and this article about women in the Montana Legislature [2]. Enos733 (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but you mentioned how the article itself is interesting, and in response I was asking in which way. The article mentions which women first held which offices, and some information about the first female executive officeholders. This information already exists in those respective articles. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid topic for an encyclopedia article, well-sourced. Gamaliel (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A generic article provided information passes WP:RS. JoyStick101 (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 12:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review article in light of recent changes in content. Also, consider Merge proposal put forward by the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reversal of my previous (and now-stricken) !vote. In light of recent content changes and improved sourcing, I believe this now passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a notable topic, article isn't such a poor state that deletion is needed. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:27, 11 May 2022 (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.