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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WomanStats Project

[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account(JessicaHogstrom (talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than related to WomanStats Project, in addition to beingemployed by WomanStats Project. Previously deleted[1] as Blatant advertising and promotion. Previous versions were created by an SPA sock puppet of Wikigender. Seems to be nothing more than Non-Notable Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if someone else volunteers to clean it up. Obviously all of the above is a problem. But if the projects information has been used, criticized, etc. by WP:RS would be notable and useful to include. Here are four WP:RS articles about it. (Again, news searches for all news would help.) 19:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk

At the outset I need to disclose that I also work for the WomanStats Project. I can confirm that Jessica Hogstrom does work at the project; I have no idea about the sockpuppet account in Wikigender, that was probably put there by an earlier coder. I have gone through and edited the article, adding more outside sources and deleting some of the original promotional material in order to make it more about the information. I replaced some of the references to the WomanStats blog with unafilliated sources. However, the citations in the article itself should confirm that it does meet the general notability guidelines. I am aware that there is an inherent conflict of interest with my personal connection, and that ultimately another third-party editor will need to contribute to the article (any volunteers?). That being said, this article has only been up for a few weeks now, and, in addition to the article's own third-party citations, a quick google-scholar or google search should confirm that there is enough outside, thirt-party interest that given enough time some outside editors will get around to contributing to this article.Kant66 (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Kant66[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't work for them.... Very many articles on Wikipedia are created by SPAs. They then get taken over by the ~~busybodies who didn't or couldn't create them~~ community in general. I've not had time yet to check through the refs, and I hope that when I do there will be third party coverage of the project and not just of the idea. Looks reasonable enough at first sight. Peridon (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough in the refs to give a basic indication of notability, to my mind. Peridon (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lionel (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2011 (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.