Deletion of Women in Christmas Island

Comment: Deadlinks are not a solid reason for deletion. PamD has made a pretty good improvement effort too, so I think a keep per  is the right course. The Antropological study looks like it could be used to improve this greatly, its 200+ pages. I'd also be fine with a merge to Christmas Island#Demographics, but think that outright deletion is nonsensical
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: per . Brilliant work by {{U|PamD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: per . I think that ''Christmas Island: An Anthropological Study'' looks very promising
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST)

Comment: The proposal to delete the article is contrary to policy as there are sensible |alternatives which we prefer per .  The topic still has more scope for expansion as it seems easy to find more substantial sources such as ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gsGegGC3GmYC Christmas Island: An Anthropological Study
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: per .  also - if I understand correctly this would be Christmas Island's only womem-based article.  even nova scotia has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_Scotia_Voice_of_Women.  I say keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)