- 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 as this is noticeable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Art+Feminism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete This is a Wikipedia initiative, not a topic that is notable or appropriate for Wikipedia mainspace. Propose moving to Wikipedia:Meetup/Art+Feminism or other more relevant space BrillLyle ( talk) 03:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Definitely seems notable enough for it own article to me. *Treker ( talk) 10:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep There are plenty of reliable, independent sources reporting on this, enough to satisfy WP:GNG. The article is distinct from Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism in that it's a report on the event without the meta aspects of coordinating. Compare The Signpost (Wikipedia) and Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation) for other articles on Wikipedia/WMF aspects or initiatives. clpo13( talk) 16:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep There is significant coverage of Wikipedia's gender gap in independent reliable sources, and the Art+Feminism project has received enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG Mduvekot ( talk) 16:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly notable topic. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- And your idea to do this article -- shouldn't you recuse yourself? --
BrillLyle (
talk)
17:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nope, but you are right, I should say that I helped create the article (actually, I created a draft article, and the content of that draft was combined with another editor's draft, creating a new article). --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Wikipedia's attitude towards articles about itself is a little bit inconsistent where topics are of borderline notability, but there's been more than enough coverage of A+F to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)-
- Keep, notable and internet-related important topic. Randy Kryn 18:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable AusLondonder ( talk) 18:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I understand that some editors want to minimize the amount of navel-gazing that Wikipedia does, but there are enough sources already listed in this article to easily demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, as topic has most certainly been the subject of independent reliable coverage from many varying sources over time. — Cirt ( talk) 21:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep With the amount of sources, independent from Wikipedia and participants, it's definitely a stay. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 as this is noticeable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Art+Feminism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete This is a Wikipedia initiative, not a topic that is notable or appropriate for Wikipedia mainspace. Propose moving to Wikipedia:Meetup/Art+Feminism or other more relevant space BrillLyle ( talk) 03:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Definitely seems notable enough for it own article to me. *Treker ( talk) 10:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep There are plenty of reliable, independent sources reporting on this, enough to satisfy WP:GNG. The article is distinct from Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism in that it's a report on the event without the meta aspects of coordinating. Compare The Signpost (Wikipedia) and Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation) for other articles on Wikipedia/WMF aspects or initiatives. clpo13( talk) 16:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep There is significant coverage of Wikipedia's gender gap in independent reliable sources, and the Art+Feminism project has received enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG Mduvekot ( talk) 16:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly notable topic. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- And your idea to do this article -- shouldn't you recuse yourself? --
BrillLyle (
talk)
17:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nope, but you are right, I should say that I helped create the article (actually, I created a draft article, and the content of that draft was combined with another editor's draft, creating a new article). --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Wikipedia's attitude towards articles about itself is a little bit inconsistent where topics are of borderline notability, but there's been more than enough coverage of A+F to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)-
- Keep, notable and internet-related important topic. Randy Kryn 18:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable AusLondonder ( talk) 18:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I understand that some editors want to minimize the amount of navel-gazing that Wikipedia does, but there are enough sources already listed in this article to easily demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, as topic has most certainly been the subject of independent reliable coverage from many varying sources over time. — Cirt ( talk) 21:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep With the amount of sources, independent from Wikipedia and participants, it's definitely a stay. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- 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.