Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist Peace Network

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. RL0919 (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Peace Network[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)

Unreferenced. May no longer exist. Rathfelder (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My WP:BEFORE turned up no significant coverage in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Nom's comments are not reasons for deleting an article. As to whether the organisation is or was notable: it is included in Feminist Manifestos: A Global Documentary Reader (NYU Press, 2018) [1], its role in the Occupy movement is described in 100 Years of the Nineteenth Amendment: An Appraisal of Women's Political Activism (Oxford University Press, 2018) [2], it was included in 365 Ways to Change the World: How to Make a Difference... One Day At a Time (2005). I think there is probably coverage that is not accessible online (eg in MS Magazine). The article needs improving, to include history, actions, etc, and references, but that is not a reason to delete it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every time you create an article you are told "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted.". But if any references are added I will very happily withdraw my nomination. Rathfelder (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but WP:NEXIST also exists. As one editor has voted Delete, I don't think you can withdraw your nomination. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen. Sufficient sources have been identified, and AfD is not cleanup. Catrìona (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've added a little to the article. The group seems to be like Code Pink, but hasn't been as successful. However, there certainly is coverage and I've added that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:26, 24 December 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.