Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance of Women Directors


 * 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   no consensus. Currently, the community is unable to find whether or not this 501c(3) is notable enough to merit inclusion here. The AFDs nominator also (although in a non-standard way) withdrew their nomination. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 03:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Alliance of Women Directors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I turned down a CSD A7 and a few of us have had a look, but of all the sources we've uncovered, there doesn't seem to be much other than mentions of the variety of "x, who is a member of the Alliance of Women Directors". I think we could still mention the organisation in passing in a few biographies of its members that happen to be notable for other means, but there doesn't seem to be much in reliable sources to actually make an article stick. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The organization is fairly new, maybe that's why it hasn't garnered much in the way of coverage at this time. I was unable to think of a suitable redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand the points made but this organization is incredibly relevant and important to the film industry. Given how few women's voices there are in the industry and this is one of the only organization's doing anything about it I find it highly suspect that the only system for determining its importance and relevance is precise references to on other web articles. This is why this is so important & relevant - http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/dga-study-women-and-minority-directors-face-significant-hiring-disadvantage-at-entry-level-20150109 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjenred5 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Just to pick a random other page on wiki that has been approved, apparently the video game Skull & Crossbones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_%26_Crossbones) is important & relevant but The Alliance of Women Directors is not? These judgement calls are neither neutral nor absent of perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjenred5 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the article Skull & Crossbones has been also flagged for AfD &mdash; Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Rather than a Speedy Deletion, why not take a week or so to try to improve the article? Carl Henderson (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Other points of relevance (sorry I don't know how to format on this)... http://www.networkisa.org/podcast.php?id=2466

How to Hire a Woman Director http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/guest-post-how-to-hire-a-woman-director-20150225 Study on Women in Film Confirms the Worst http://www.indiewire.com/article/sorry-ladies-study-on-women-in-film-and-television-confirms-the-worst-20150210 Women Directed Top Films http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/women-directed-17-of-the-top-250-grossing-films-of-2014-20150108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjenred5 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This AfD is today attracting considerable traffic on Twitter, with supporters of the Alliance of Women Directors either prematurely decrying the article's removal or assailing its proposed deletion. None of these supporters seems to have the slightest familiarity with Notability (organizations and companies). I appreciate the passions this AfD has aroused, but respectfully suggest that newcomers acquaint themselves with our relevant guideline before commenting. WikiCVU (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep AWD was established in 1997. That means it is older than Wikipedia. It is possible that plenty of reliable sources may be found if authors peruse beyond the first page of a Google search. Keep the article and encourage authors to seek out reliable references from relevant persons in the industry. Keep track on the talk page if need be. As for notability, their industry affiliations are notable enough to demand further inquiry. I have little doubt that such an organization would not survive ~18 years in film if it lacked relevance. General popularity is not the primary standard that should be used for industry groups. For example, I doubt many would recognize AIChE or ASME outside of engineering, yet their importance begs recognition in a resource claiming to be as comprehensive as Wikipedia. I posit that the same general confinement of notoriety to those within the relevant industry is the cause for the lack of easily available reliable references. Try asking some directors who are members of AWD if casual searches are not turning up anything. Xenomancer (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Please take another look at this article now. This afternoon (03-18-15), myself and several other editors have gone over it improved it, removed some of the PR-speak, and added references to some reliable sources. I think it would easily pass the AFD hurdle now. Carl Henderson (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Myself and other editors have worked more on the AWD article over the past few days. I took a final pass at it myself tonight, doing some reorganization, adding a few new sources, and fleshing out a Programs section on what the AWD does for its members. If you are on the fence, or leaning towards delete, please give it one more look. Thanks! Carl Henderson (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep meets guideline after recent edits. ukexpat (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This is irritating that it's even being discussed. The article already has citations and it's a legitimate non-profit group registered with the state and mentioned in The Daily Variety.  As someone who's tried MANY times to contribute to Wikipedia and has had legitimate citations removed, it really continues to prove to me that Wikipedia is run by a small elite group who is "writing" history based on some sort of unseen agenda.  As a college professor, we already steer students away from Wikipedia as a source for any research and this simply confirms why that needs to continue.  Our school librarian gives lectures as to why Wikipedia needs to be avoided.  It's instances like this that confirm it.  When a legitimate 501(c)3 is being pulled for being too "young" after 12 years of operation and mention in the trade papers it shows that only "special" topics (those chosen by the elite, hidden group behind Wikipedia) are really steering this story - and altering it to their liking.Planetprods (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)PlanetProds (a college professor)
 * Why is it irritating that this is being discussed? Being a legitimate non-profit with a mention in a publication does NOT make it automatically notable. Also if you really are a college professor you would know that the reasons for "avoiding" Wikipedia have nothing to do with this discussion. In fact, this whole process helps STRENGTHEN wikipedia. Wikipedia is not to be used as a reference or source, it does not mean that it doesn't have it's place. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment re "some sort of unseen agenda": Let's get one thing straight: There is nothing "unseen" or "hidden" about the inclusion criteria here. They are spelled out quite clearly at the General Notability Guideline and, for organizations, specifically at WP:ORG. Not every registered non-profit group meets these criteria. This is an international encyclopedia and cannot have articles about everything in the world, only about those subjects that have already been determined to be "notable" by significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, there is nothing spelled out clearly in significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. What exactly does mean? 2 references? 10 references? 50 references? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:GNG for a clearer explanation. "Significant" refers to the TYPE of coverage; it means coverage in some depth (not a passing mention) specifically about the subject (not about peripheral subjects such as the people involved with it). The NUMBER of references is addressed by the requirement for "multiple" sources with significant coverage. "Multiple" is not specifically defined but means two at a minimum. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * MelanieN I think most people are aware of the sense of what is written in WP:GNG, but it still doesn't allow any sort of objectivity. The language is woolly. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" - that's open to a whole range of interpretations. "sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability" ... now what is that? I don't come by AfD that much for exactly this sort of reason, there is simply no agreed standard as to which sources are reliable, and how much coverage things need to receive in them. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The guidelines can never be that specific, the world is too varied it's impossible to write general guidelines that cover all cases. So they are intentionally somewhat soft on specifics. Simply, something is notable if it has significant coverage, and significant means there is enough to be notable! It's our opinion and consensus that counts. Oh, and as a "guideline" it can be ignored entirely, if we want. Wikipedia is a consensus-based encyclopedia and consensus always has more weight than the guidelines, indeed more weight than anything. -- Green  C  13:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the statement Oh, and as a "guideline" it can be ignored entirely, if we want. because it seem to overlook that important fact that guidelines, like policies, are established through consensus and are not opinion pieces like essays. Guidelines represent what the community at large has determined to be best practices that each editor should try and follow. Sure there are occasional exceptions, but "don't want to" is not one in my opinion. WP:CONLIMITED tells us that a "local consensus" (i.e., "a consensus achieved by a limited group of editors at a one place or time") does not take precedence over a "community consensus". Furthermore, WP:CONSENSUS says that consensus "involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." The WP:GNG, WP:ORG and other notability guidelines have been determined through consensus and are widely accepted by the community as a whole. For sure, they may be changed over time, but this is something best achieved through proper discussion at their talk pages and not by simply ignoring them here because it helps us save this particular article. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The text of the Policy on Guidelines states, "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I would read that not as we can blow them off whenever, but rather as—if in the judgement of the editors and admins considering a specific case—that case is held to be an "exception", then it that can override the general guideline. I would argue that the formal discussion and consensus reaching of an AFD would constitute a case of such a judgement being made. Carl Henderson (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment As the editor who started this discussion, I'd like to make a few points. I apologise to the regulars for going a little off-topic and long winded, but I'd like to reassure some of the visitors that I have sympathy for their viewpoints, some of which I agree with myself.
 * Comment We are getting closer to a "keep". The Variety article does provide some significant coverage about the organization from an independent reliable source. If we can find a second such article, the subject wlil meet WP:GNG, since the guideline requires coverage by "multiple" independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I would really, really, really like to keep this article, in principle. But where is the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources? The Variety piece says it is "a nonprofit organization for female helmers" and that isn't even a complete sentence, let alone significant coverage. I call it a passing mention. Am I missing something? So, if someone can come up with actual significant coverage in reliable, indepdndent sources, I will be delighted to recommend keeping the article. But it is not honest to keep an article just because we find the subject of the article appealing in the abstract, in the lack of solid evidence of notabity. Just furnish the evidence. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete I tend to agree with Cullen328's comment above about Friend's Variety article. The mentioning of the AWD seems to be passing in nature and doesn't imply what it is supposed to be actually supporting in the article. I don't think it can be used to establish notability per WP:ORG. I also think the sentence "The AWD has also partnered with organizations such as Sundance Institute[4] and the Fox Global Directors Initiative[5] towards achieving the group's aims." is a bit problematic. The Fox source only lists the AWD as one of a number of organizations selected to be "nominators", while the Sundance source only lists the AWD as one of a number of "Allied" organizations. The text's use of "partnered" implies a much stronger, deeper connection in my opinion than being "one of a number of" (i.e., inclusion in a list of similar organizations) that doesn't help establish notability per WP:ORGDEPTH. Just for reference, there's also a quote that a director named Barcos gave to Variety that is uncited and a cite to an Elle article for director Jen McGowan that fails verification which are also problematic. Even though these are not connected to notability, they should be fixed. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the "AWD has also partnered with..." sentence to be more precise and accurate based your suggestion on the talk page. I think you are correct about the phrasing. I'm a marketing communications person by trade and that mode of writing sometimes infects my other work. Thank you for the better phrasing. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've change my !vote from "Comment" to "Delete". I've just taken a look at the Facebook page for "Alliance of Women Directors" and I now have some serious concerns that this article may have been created by somebody with a conflict of interest. The following was posted on that FB page by a Jen McGowan on m March 17 at 18:25: "I just created a wiki page for AWD and need your help updating it. If you are or you know anyone that is a wiki editor please contribute to the page so it stays live. (Wiki will take it down if it doesn't have links and activity.) I hope you dig it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Women_Directors ". If this is the same Jen McGowan who is one of the directors listed as a notable member of the AWD, then that would seem contrary to the spirit of WP:COS. This leads me to believe that, although the creator's intentions may have been good, the article was primarily created for promotional reasons. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In this context, it's fair to point out that the editor to whom you allude but do not name can be readily identified from the AWD revision history as User:Jjenred5. Not only did that editor create Wikipedia's Alliance of Women Directors organizational page, she also edited it 20 times this month and posted three unsigned comments on this AfD. Moreover, the same editor has made 22 edits to Wikipedia's Jen McGowan biographical page. I respectfully ask that User:Jjenred5 clarify this for us. It may be mere coincidence that her Wikipedia Username is suggestive of Jen McGowan, in which case we can disregard any appearance of conflict of interest based on circumstantial evidence. WikiCVU (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know Jen McGowan or Jjenred5, but there is reason to think they are the same person. According to the Wikipedia article on Jennifer (given name), Jennifer was one of the 100 most popular women's names in the US from 1956 to 2009, and was one of the top 10 most popular women's names from 1966 to 1992. It was the most popular name for women's names from 1970 to 1984. In other words, there are a whole lot of "Jennifers" out there. Having the string "jen" in one's Wikipedia user name is meaningless insofar as identifying the real life identity of an editor. In the absence of any other information, I think WP:AGF should apply here, as well as the general (and well-founded) reticence on Wikipedia about speculations on editor's real life identity. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am an idiot. I did not read Marchjuly's original comment above. Ignore my comment immediately preceding this one. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do believe the article is salvageable and that Alliance of Women Directors does meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The current article has been substantially expanded, referenced, and re-written by myself and other editors from the original. I'm going to continue to seek out sources and try to improve it. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I want to find people who don't like Wikipedia and strongly criticise it, I need look no further than my partner, my colleagues at work, and some of my best friends. For the record, my other half can be considered a "Women Director" having produced a children's television series and made majority decisions of what to film and where. There are Wikipedia editors who I personally consider to be complete and total jerks and cause great harm to the project through groupthink and systemic bias, but nobody cares about me whining about other Wikipedia editors so I'll name no names - AFAIK, none have participated in this debate so far.
 * People start AfD debates for a variety of reasons, some good, some bad - but when I start a debate, all I usually mean is "I've tried to improve this article and can't see a way of doing it, I'm stuck, is it worth proceeding?" Indeed, looking at the article history I can see a proposal to speedy delete the article (ie: wipe it out with no debate at all) which even I strongly objected to, and I attempted to improve things by adding a citation to Elle magazine  A "keep" result means "yes it is", a "delete" result means "no, we're better off leaving it for now". It's unfortunate that the process is accompanied with big scary messages, but that is the nature of the beast, sadly.
 * It's somewhat perverse, but if the debate closes as "keep" it will result in a far better article than if no deletion discussion occurred. I am pleased that is participating in the debate and making good faith suggestions to improve the article - and these should be encouraged. Now, I'm not some Wiki-ogre who likes deleting things - in fact it drives me up the wall ( see here) and I'm usually frustrated I can't improve an article.

So what information am I looking for (and would make me change my mind and switch to !voting "keep" - which I have done in the past)? Well, ideally I'd like what I call (for some bizarre reason) a "money source" - an in-depth news article, preferably from a broadsheet newspaper such as the New York Times or LA Times, or maybe one of the major film magazines sold nationally (sorry, don't know what those are in the US, but the British equivalent would be Empire). Basically, something that allows me to write a full and in-depth article directly about the topic, its history and its purpose. (edit : I see upthread that the Variety source has already gone some way towards this)

I can't get that from a magazine piece saying "so and so, who is a member of the Alliance of Women Directors, said..." - there's no information there to be able to write about the company. Have a look at Ika Hügel-Marshall (a good read even if I do say so myself), our "money source" there was an 5-6 page in-depth analysis of the article's subject archived on JSTOR, which was enough to write the guts of a basic article. Then when we got her autobiography (commercially published and edited by a third party, so can be considered reliable), we could expand the article even more, eventually obtaining good article status.

Anyway, I've rambled on for too long but hopefully that'll give you some ideas and reassure you that editor retention is a favourite subject of mine and nothing here is in any way personal. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the nine sources listed are specifically about the organization. Textbook examples of quote-mined passing mentions.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 09:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
 * The sources adding quotes from various AWD officials (Eleonore Dailly, Maria Burton, Jacqui Barcos) specifically reference them by their role with the AWD, and in those articles the people mentioned are addressing the goals of the organization. I believe that that makes them more than a passing reference, and—as such—that those citations should go towards establishing notability. I do not believe that the WP:RS rules require a source to be solely focused on the topic of the WP article. I would ask that you reconsider your Delete recommendation.Carl Henderson (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What you say is true Carl, and those sources are fine for sourcing what was said, who said it and to whom it was said. They do not, however, help establish the notability of the AWD. Just as a person cannot inherit Wikipedia notability from another person, an organization cannot "inherit" its notability from its membership. WP:ORG says is that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." and WP:ORGDEPTH says "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." I am not questioning the reliability of the sources; I do question, however, whether they constitute "significant coverage" of the AFD according to WP:ORG. My opinion is that they don't. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. It's borderline regarding the formal notability rules, but there seems to be much more to gain by keeping this well-constructed article than would be achieved by deleting it. --LukeSurlt c 18:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm giving things another go and trying to pull whatever sources I can find, but things are not looking promising. Take this extract from The Quest for Conscience and the Birth of the Mind, a psychology book by Annie Reiner. Great - reliable source, notable author - perfect for this article. Unfortunately, the prose I'd use for a citation shows an obvious pitfall - "... reminded him of a panel discussion he had heard recently by an alliance of women in film discussion why there were so few women directors." It doesn't even mention the organisation's name! And this Variety source merely namechecks the alliance amongst five other groups! That reinforces my view that the topic of women directors (or rather a lack of them) might be notable, but the AWD, as far as reliable sources are concerned, is not. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep Most of the information about AWD is from their website, not reliable secondary sources. I like the idea of this article and have actively looked for reliable sources referencing it. On the majority of pages, AWD is mentioned only once in passing, usually tagging it on to a member's list of accomplishments. The "History" section of this article is dismal, because it appears that apart from AWD having famous members and a website, it has done almost nothing that has been documented by secondary sources. Mere existence is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. Maybe in a few years, this article will be appropriate, but not as it stands now. Also, it does seem to me that the creator and the majority of the editors have a conflict of interest in keeping the article up, not for encyclopedic purposes. -Iamozy (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a number of editors working on the article (like myself) who have collectively made the majority of recent edits who don't have any Conflict of Interest. I'd never heard of the AWD before I saw the question in the Teahouse earlier this week. Carl Henderson (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Iamozy, saying "the majority of the editors have a conflict of interest in keeping the article up" is a cheap shot. Only the article's creator has been the subject of such speculation. Everyone else who's edited Alliance of Women Directors has demonstrated nothing but good faith. WikiCVU (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, I wrote that without looking into it thoroughly. I did not mean to dismiss the work you and other editors have done to improve the quality of this article. That was my mistake. -Iamozy (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed my response to keep since the additions of more sources. A few more may be needed, but I think it has a better standing than before. -Iamozy (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you to those who have helped get this page in compliance. I am new to this and am definitely learning a ton. Not that this matters to the page but I think some of you would like to know that overall this has been a positive experience and I plan to continue editing and will hopefully improve, the only downside has been the trolling that I and other women have experienced on twitter over this issue. Seems pretty silly but whatevs, not really concerned about it but thought you should know it's been happening. Regarding the article, I've received considerable support about this page over the past few days and I expect non-AWD member wiki editors to contribute to continuer improving the page. Obviously I will not touch it any more. I didn't know I could't as a member but I do now.Jjenred5 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep if the improvements continue. Full disclosure: I was asked offsite to have a look at the article and some of the concerns listed herein are quite valid, specifically wrt what the cited sources say—and what they don't say. I would also note that COI is not in and of itself a disqualifier; the intent is (or is not). All in all, the article seems to be shaping up and—again, presuming said good-faith effort continues—deletion at this point strikes me as incorrect. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 08:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why were five comments on this page just deleted? That is unusual to say the least. Carl Henderson (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There were policy issues aimed toward some editors. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 22:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am going to switch to moral keep as Carl's work on the article, plus the extraordinary bad PR the WMF would get from deleting this (when it is trying to address systemic bias and more women contributors) means that I think we should keep it. In the interests of full disclosure, my partner has been posting on the AWD's twitter feed giving advice about how to document the group in the press, so that their notability is far easier to verify in future. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I'd just like to point out that I'm far from the only editor to have worked on improving the article. Theroadislong, Marchjuly, JohnValeron, J Lynn Reed 2015, LukeSurl, Morganfaust, and MelanieN have all made multiple edits to the AWD article.


 * My understanding of Wikipedia is that its purpose is not to right great wrongs. Keeping articles for moral reasons seems to imply that articles may also be deleted for moral reasons, i.e., a "moral delete". Wikipedia editors are a varied lot. I not sure if there is one common morality that we all share. If moral arguments are recognized in this AfD, then they should also be recognized in other AfDs. I personally think it's best to stick to whether the AWD currently satisfies relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, i.e., WP:ORG and WP:GNG, and not whether it may some day satisfy these policies and guidelines. We can debate whether an article should be kept/deleted based upon these policy, but how do we debate whether an article should be kept/deleted based upon morality. Such an attempt to do so would seem to imply that one side is going to end up being seen as "immoral". I'm not sure if we want to take this discussion in that direction. One possible solution to this whole thing may be to userfy or incubate the article in the spirit of WP:RAPID. The basic premise seems to be to re-add the article to an editor's userspace or the draft namespace where it can continue to be worked on and improved until it is ready to be re-added to the mainspace. This is just a suggestion as possible alternative to outright deletion. FWIW, even if the article survives this AfD and is kept, there's no guarantee that it will not be nominated for deletion again by another editor sometime down the road for similar reasons. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak delete: Many of the sources that cover the subject are just passing mentions and quotes from members of the organization, but there are quite a few of them. Although the quantity of sources is enough, almost all of them are only passing mentions and quotes from members of the organization, and thus, fails WP:ORGDEPTH. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 01:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I wavered on this one. Either way it would be a "weak" !vote. I think the volume of minimal-to-meh sources in high-profile publications, which are so ready to hand, suggests there's likely something more .... but I can't find it. Weak keep is based on this sense combined with the clear intentions of several editors to continue working on the subject. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NONPROFIT (or WP:ORG). Has national scope and is mentioned in national sources, the two criteria. -- Green  C  13:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that the AWD is national (perhaps even international) in scope, but for the sake of clarification, the second criterion listed in "WP:NONPROFIT" is "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple[1] reliable sources that are independent of the organization." which is not quite exactly the same as simply being "mentioned in national sources". As for "WP:ORG", WP:ORG says the following: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Moreover, WP:ORGDEPTH in "WP:ORG" considers coverage such as  "inclusion in lists of similar organizations", "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization", etc. to be trivial. I don't think any of us disagree that certain members of the AWD are notable and influential (women) directors, or that the AWD is trying to good things; However, WP:INHERITORG (also in "WP:ORG") says that "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable." - Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC) - (Post edited to strike redundant mentions of "WP:ORG") 22:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm slightly shocked and having trouble understanding some of these keep !votes. The bottom line is this: Does the organization meet our inclusion guidelines? The answer as far as I can see is no. Not yet at least. There is no such thing as a "moral keep" or whatever that was. It seems we're being bullied by these people to keep the article because OMG gender issues, and that is going to set a really bad precedent. Because the next one is going to be an African NGO, and so OMG race issues, and then a charity that promotes children's health and so OMG think of the children. And ad nauseam until we're flooded with articles about non-notable organizations that we're too afraid to delete because OMG something. Wikipedia is not here to promote causes or advertise organizations - it is here to document the notability of the subjects it covers. If the organization was truly notable, someone other than a member with a conflict of interest would have created it by now. But that's not the case, because it is not notable (although obviously some of the members are). And this AFD wouldn't even have started. But here we are. Delete for now, wait until someone else creates it once there is sufficient secondary coverage of the org's work. And truly, shame on the COI editor for bringing gender into this whole thing, or for suggesting your barely notable group deserves a separate set of standards because OMG women. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Request I'd like to request that the article be copied to my userspace if the AFD passes and Alliance of Women Directors ends up being removed from Wikipedia mainspace. I can keep an eye out for any new sources that may or may not pop up demonstrating notability, add them if useful, and then send the article back out via the AFC process. Thanks. Carl Henderson (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to have the article's talk page copied over to my userspace as well, should the AFD pass. Carl Henderson (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2015 (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.