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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suffrage Hike[edit]

Suffrage Hike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

How is this notable or memorable? I say that is it no different than any of the other myriad women's rights caterwauling that's been going on for the last several hundred years. No different than an article on "Molly's bra burning at the Bush second inauguration party, 2004, Salem, Mass." Sourcing seems a bit suspect as well. Rubbish. Torkmann (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's a New York Times source in there from 1913...and google shows the existence of a non-trivial Chicago Tribune article from 1913. Considering it's 2009...and I found those on the internet...chances are there are more than that. But the fact of the matter is that the article was created mere hours ago, is in stub form, is already sourced...and sources do exist to show this meets WP:V and WP:N. --Smashville^talk 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. is it legitmate to take ONE old archived newspaper article and then write a wikipedia article around it? If so, I am wrong eh? Torkmann (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the event and the article. -- Banjeboi 02:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep OK, I'm an old editor who hasn't done this in a long time, but as I recall, the procedure was to call for "speedy keep" in cases where the wording of the deletion request was such that it made an impassive discussion difficult. Given the characterization of "myriad women's rights caterwauling" I'm going to have to simply vote for keep on this basis. -Miskaton (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources exist and likely more can be found if the Times covered it. A notable enough event with sources. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - A quick search of Google News turned up eight New York Times articles, three Chicago Tribune articles, two Los Angeles Times articles, and one each from the Hartford Courant, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the Syracuse, New York Herald, all dating from 1912-1924. A quick Google Books search showed me thirteen books that mention the topic. That's an amazing amount of information online about a subject that took place almost a century ago. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. You listed this article for deletion 78 minutes after it was created. It is still under construction. Since you listed it two additional sources were added and an additional photograph. There is no reason to believe that this wouldn't have happened if you hadn't listed it, and there's no reason to believe that the article won't continue to be improved. (Even when you listed it, 78 minutes after construction, it was sourced.) APL (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per above, numerous sources are out there. It seems easily notable enough. Think we can WP:SNOW this? Dismas|^(talk) 08:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've noticed...there's no actual deletion rationale to this AfD other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Smashville^talk 13:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article needs help, but it is certainly a notable topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Looks like a notable series of events that happened between 1913 and 1915. Coverage in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, and a handful of other newspapers. Easily meets WP:GNG. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like part of a pointy series of nominations. Satisfies WP:N. Edison (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. -shirulashem^(talk) 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Misogynistic pointy nomination. Torkmann deserves a block for this kind of behaviour. Fences&Windows 22:24, 31 July 2009 (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.