Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy


 * 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 redirect‎ __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Aromanticism. History is under the redirect Star   Mississippi  19:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No secondary independent sources found in BEFORE check. Being involved with Aromantic Week does not confer/inherit notability to the organization itself. I am incredibly sympathetic to this orgs' cause, but see this as case of WP:TOOSOON. Worth reading WP:ADVOCACY too. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sexuality and gender. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * KEEP: The organization is the face of Aromanticism (the A in LGBTQIA+, alongside asexual and agender) to the general public.
 * There are a series of books (1 2 3 4 5 that have been published recently (many within the last few months) that all reference to AUREA for information on Aromanticism. Thanks to your prompt I also realized the ommission that the organization was approached by Jessica Kingsley Publishers to commission a book about aromanticism, which is in the works (I've added a note to the effect to the article now).
 * They have also been cited in more recent scientific journals such as this recent journal article published in the Journal of Lesbian Studies, which highlights that Aromanticism is "Too often dismissively framed as "new" identities arising out of nowhere".
 * This information being more widely available has been a significant factor to combat LGBT erasure that happens around it and AUREA has been at the center of it.
 * On the news front, there are some (few yet, I give you that) secondary independent sources, such as an article in the Cosmopolitan and Seventeen magazine.
 * There are also various psychology help sites that point to AUREA for more information on aromanticism such as psychcentral.com and many interviews internationally pointing there such as SWLondoner or newsweek and LGBTQIA+ organizations such as PFLAG, Seattle Pride and various university LGBTQ organizations all pointing to AUREA for resources on Aromanticism such as pflag.org, Seattle Pride or Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society.
 * They are also not just involved with Aromantic Spectrum Awareness week, they are the leading organizer. I've updated the article to make this more clear and in lieu of ASAW being its own article, but already recognized and with WP:LASTING effect for the aromantic community in LGBTQIA+ awareness and inclusion, I've made it a main section on the article until someone may decide in the future to WP:SPLIT it out into its own article.
 * I believe all of this amounts to enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Raladic (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A couple more international online media/magazines I found referencing the organization: Women's Health Magazine, Psychology Today, Magdalene from Indonesia, Diva from Slovakia, Philippine Daily Inquirer.
 * These references, along with the ones I already outlined above all refer to the organization as the sourcing/referencing about aromanticism, it's not just a mere trivial mention and under WP:SIGCOV, it doesn't need to be the main topic of the source material.
 * And refuting the point of Walt Yoder below, WP:ARTICLEAGE is an invalid argument to make in AfD and the article is written neutrally with all texts cited and referenced and not promotional, which in any case would be addressed through copy-editing, not deletion.
 * So just because a topic is newer and may be a minority point, doesn't mean that it is not notable perWP:WNIN. This is something which WP:PRIDE and WP:CSB tries to address to overcome the limited WP:WORLDVIEW around minority topics and the Wikimedia foundation specifically called out to promote inclusion on Wikipedia. Raladic (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - since it doesn't look like there's a clear consensus, but the suggestion from two users below to merge it into Aromanticism.
 * If the reviewing admin comes to that conclusion rather than keep based on the sources I've found above, the I'd like to request the outcome be merge and redirect per WP:INSTEAD please. Raladic (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Sourcing is primary or related to the organization. The books mentioned appear to be related to them, being mentioned by Seattle Pride doesn't make them notable. Cosmopolitan is a start, but coverage is trivial. Being a lead organizer of the Awareness Week is a primary source. There is no SIGCOV of the organization, so we can't establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the books are also trivial mentions, or directory listings. Neither of which contributes to notability. I'm sure they do good work, but they aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

*Delete lack of sourcing, nothing found in RS that discuss them at length. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete article is recently created and blatantly promotional. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Aromanticism Xdtp (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason why I voted merge it's similar to AVEN, the content of it was on Asexuality, now it has its own article. I agree it's TOOSOON, but it doesn't need to be deleted if there's a potential target to go. Xdtp (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Add some info to the Aromanticism article if it fits in. There isn't enough about this organization (yet) for an encyclopedia page. I can't tell if the organization is formally incorporated (no mention of that) and it looks like the organization does not have staff, only volunteers. It's only a few years old so perhaps it needs more time. Lamona (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you mean your recommendation vote is to merge and redirect (WP:ATD-R) to Aromanticism instead, not delete yes? Raladic (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is enough info for a merge. The Aromanticism article has a sentence that lists this organization, but that sentence has no cite. I'm not yet convinced that there are sufficient sources to justify naming this organization in that article. A reliable third-party cite would be needed and i don't see one. So I'm still going with delete. The organization would best be listed as an external source on the Aromanticism page, since there are no possible citations. And we don't usually do redirects for external sources. Lamona (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added the relevant citations that I sourced above in the AfD discussion to the Aromanticism page now.
 * I do find it a bit curious that no one in this AfD discussion has actually addressed the many additional sources I have found and linked above and just decided to ignore them as if they didn't exist.
 * They do exist, but at best they are mentions in articles about aromanticism, and some of the sources cited do not mention the organization at all. It takes more than just proving the existence of the organization - there have to be independent significant sources that are primarily about it. Those may come in the future but they are not here today. Also, one of those sources you added affirms that this is a volunteer organization, which is possibly a good start but may need to become more stable before it has the kind of impact that would produce sources. Lamona (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of them are secondary independent, like the Cosmopolitan article as User:Oaktree b conceded above and I believe also the international articles I found later on and the peer-reviewed Journal article that cites them for the history on Aromanticism and yes, some may be more primary but per WP:PRIMARY, they are allowed (as long as not used solely for the information, which I have not done here) if they state a fact that can be verified by an educated person with access to the source, which this is a case for. Raladic (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2023 (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.