Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminists Against Censorship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 07:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feminists Against Censorship[edit]
Non-notable very diffuse group with tenuous existence.
- Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Scranchuse 23:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete most google hits are referring to various feminists who are against censorship, not the group in specific. Ultimately a NN group. --Bachrach44 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn, San Saba 10:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Eusebeus 14:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Which Google search are you looking at, Bachrach44? Virtually all of the first 20 hits are about this group. Vashti 16:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've paged a couple of hundred into Google's results for "feminists against censorship" now, and almost without exception the hits have been about this group. There are 16,500 hits. Unfortunately it's not possible to get an Alexa rating for it. Vashti 19:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 639 Ghits not 16,500 - go to the end of the list. It doesn't have an Alexa because it doesn't have a site. It's just a name with which individuals occasionally associate themselves. Dlyons493 Talk 19:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, they do have a site. It's here. It's not possible to get an Alexa rating for them because it counts for Demon Internet rather than the individual site. And even 600 hits is still respectable, not to mention their media references:
- The British Film Institute found them worth linking to.
- In 1998, the definitely notable Peter Tatchell stated in The Independent (a British national newspaper) that they paid a fine for him - quite remarkable for a group which doesn't actually exist. [1]
- The Independent has cited them several times, twice in 1995 [2], [3] (describing them as "a libertarian strand of the feminist movement"), and in their 2005 obituary of Andrea Dworkin, stating that the group was created in opposition to her views. [4]
- In 1999, The Sunday Herald (a Scottish newspaper) cited them regarding pornography statistics. [5]
- How many multiple non-trivial published works do we need before they can be said to exist, exactly? Vashti 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think they do have a site - Avedon Carol has a site. It was pretty much all written by her, the single contact email is hers, I suspect she'd answer the 'phone if you called their contact number. This article was created by her - I don't believe the group has a real independent existence. Dlyons493 Talk 12:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, the page is headed "Feminists Against Censorship", describes the group and its history, gives contact information, and lists several publications of which only one is written by Avedon Carol. It's not uncommon for small groups to have a web presence for which one person is responsible. According to their website, they're putting up a stall at a London fetish fair next month. They've published books, been mentioned or cited in many independent works, and appear in the media. None of this indicates a group which doesn't have "a real independent existence". They are notable, and with the number of references they have they would be notable even if they didn't exist - as many fictional entities are. Vashti 13:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think they do have a site - Avedon Carol has a site. It was pretty much all written by her, the single contact email is hers, I suspect she'd answer the 'phone if you called their contact number. This article was created by her - I don't believe the group has a real independent existence. Dlyons493 Talk 12:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, they do have a site. It's here. It's not possible to get an Alexa rating for them because it counts for Demon Internet rather than the individual site. And even 600 hits is still respectable, not to mention their media references:
- There are 639 Ghits not 16,500 - go to the end of the list. It doesn't have an Alexa because it doesn't have a site. It's just a name with which individuals occasionally associate themselves. Dlyons493 Talk 19:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Cini 16:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For all the reasons stated above by Vashti. --Charles 03:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP see above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.59.248 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete, per Bachrach44. Stifle (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm bored, so I thought I'd go and check out Google for some more references. The books search is here; I estimate that there are a bare mininum of 20 hits specifically about this group.
- Cited in "Sexuality" by Joseph Bristow [6],.
- Mentioned in the Spring 1993 "Feminist Review" [7].
- Mentioned in "Knockin' On Heaven's Door: The Hebrew Bible and Cultural Criticism" by Roland Boer [8]
- Mentioned in "Gender and Social Psychology" by Vivien Burr [9].
- Mentioned in "A Queer Romance: Lesbians, Gay Men and Popular Culture", edited by Paul Burston and Colin Richardson [10].
Vashti 08:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Vashti. --MaNeMeBasat 14:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 28 April 2006 (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.