Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water access and gender

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 per improvements, but hold a merge discussion. This article and Water supply and women in developing countries are, while not exactly the same, fairly close duplicates, and the possibility of a merge one way or another (or not at all) is one that should definitely be considered - but not in this venue. ansh 666 04:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Water access and gender

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

Wikipedia is not a repository for essays. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I was going to put PROD on it but the AfD got in first. As the nomination says, this is an essay not an encyclopaedia article. There are many places that the author can seek to publish this but Wikipedia is not one of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements have been made so this is no longer a delete for me. I now favour a merge. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a statement of the author's opinion, which is a essay containing original research, and cannot be readily made encyclopedic. (If an editor actually produces the encyclopedic essay within the required seven days, they should be entitled to a barnstar.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTESSAY. Acnetj (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inappropriate in its current form. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even meaningful essay. Next to nonsense rambling. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would remind all of the above who are !voting "Delete" that we are discussing whether a topic is notable or not--not whether the article is well written. The topic is notable and written about in several RS and over a number of years: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], As for fixing a VERY new editor's work from an essay to an article, this is not hard! All you have to do is a little copyediting, which I have. If we show new editors how Wiki articles should be written, we are doing a better service to our newbies. I am adding sources to the article so please take a look at the article's new state. Thank you. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks closer to being a complete rewrite than "a little copyediting". It is definitely an improvement but I'm not sure if it has truly stepped over the line that makes it an article not an essay. I'm not ready to switch my !vote to keep but I'd have no objection to it being made into a draft and brought back once it is ready. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: You're right: I eventually overhauled it completely! ;) What would you suggest to make it more "article-like?" Please ping me, or I may not see your reply. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is well sourced and though not an issue in the industrialised world, it is still very much an issue around the globe. Access to water is much more of a gender issue in the developing world and even though this article may need work, it should remain. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements done by Megalibrarygirl. The subject has significant coverage in RS.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this subject is notable, meets WP:GNG with well referenced article. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is notable, and a proper article. Props to MLG for takign on the DIY task. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — with Water supply and women in developing countries. ~~to Water Access in Underdeveloped Country Patriarchies~~. The article's material is clearly about "Water supply and women in developing countries". Not a single sentence in the whole essay makes reference to, or is at all related to any Western nations, so "Water access and gender" is quite an inappropriate page title. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article"XavierItzm (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Per Megalibrarygirl, who actually understands what AfD is for. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the incredible work done by Megalibrarygirl. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Water supply and women in developing countries should be merged here, as "Water access and gender" is a more appropriate title. "Developing countries" is an ill-defined and patronising term, but more fundamentally the article scope should be the whole world and every gender. There's no reason to narrow down a article title beyond that which differentiates it from other articles. If sources exist or emerge about "developed" countries and/or men or trans people then we should be able to add them here. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 17:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? - I suggest that it should be merged with the existing article on Water supply and women in developing countries. I see a lot of overlap there. EMsmile (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That makes sense. Unless there is anything much to say about developed countries I think this falls into the exactly same remit. It is unfortunate that we didn't realise this sooner but I hope that some of the work done on this article can be reused there. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv and DanielRigal: there might be some information about gender in 1st world countries. The original article mentioned how water distribution was a "masculine endeavor" starting in the 19th century... and I've heard about that sort of thing in the past. It's when water collection becomes "engineering," men seem to take over. So there may be a way to write about that. I can maybe see what I can dig up, but you might want to think about that when deciding about the article. Also, it seems like "Less developed countries" is the correct usage rather than "developing countries." That's what I ran into most often. (But I'm not an expert!) :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EMsmile: I should have pinged you, too. Sorry. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Water supply and women in developing countries. But, also, thank you to User:Megalibrarygirl for the excellent work put into basically rewriting this from scratch. I'm tempted to say keep, mostly to recognize her work, but the merge really does make sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2018 (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.