Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DC Anti-War 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

DC Anti-War Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Defunct Washington DC-based antiwar group. When I created this article back in August 2005, the claim to notability was very slim even by 2005's standards. I reviewed all of the references today, and of the reliable sources, none of them constitute substantial coverage, if they mention the group at all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No in depth secondary coverage. The article uses the group's own website and press releases for info on it which leads to POV problems.Borock (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I put a lot of work into the article, removing WP:OR and adding WP:RS after it was created - and that was before I learned to use News.Google Archives where I just found over 100 mentions of 1 spelling and 12 of the other, a sufficent number of which I'm sure are substantive. At books.google I found: four entries in Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases and a mention in The People V. Bush: One Lawyer's Campaign to Bring the President to Justice. Questionable info that may have been slipped in can be removed. The fact that it was spied on by feds as twice mentioned by the Washington Post certainly relevant and why should that go down the memory hole? Since there still is an email list, and no one "owns" the group name, it could be resuscitated. If the issue is WP:RS I could look for a few more. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Those Google Books results don't prove a thing, you'll find. You're citing a well-known Wikipedia mirror as a source.  There's a good reason that the "find sources" hyperlink above has the exclusions that it has. Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for info on Icon group. Anyway, for whoever makes these decisions, here are some sources on notable stories that can be added if the article is kept (and poorly sourced info deleted):
 * Miscellaneous articles: Gazette: Army recruiting protests details; Enola gay protest details; Counterpunch Couple mentions; Counterprotest incident; Billboard announcement of DAWN organized concert
 * 2005 Inauguration protest one or more sentences on DAWN: MSNBC, Eugene Register Gaurd, Assoc Press, Village Voice, Counterpunch, Washington Post,
 * Articles about MD Police targeting DAWN: CBC; Houston News, Washington Post.....   Thanks CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See, therein lies the problem. These sources, while reliable per WP standards, aren't substantial coverage about DAWN.  They're all trivial mentions, with a different subject being the main thrust of the articles.  Substantial coverage would consist of a full article primarily about DAWN specifically.  That I don't think we have.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Under that criteria, about 20 percent of all wikipedia articles on groups and organizations (not to mention individuals) could be deleted. So if that's a substantive criteria, I can really get busy :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually a *lot* of mentions. You can't expect every WP subject to have a comprehensive chronicle prepared by a secondary source. This group passes the test, there's no reason to pick it to death. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Keep as a matter of historical record. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To retain it on Wikipedia still requires significant coverage in reliable sources, which we don't have. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I always get confused at this point. Are you saying if a sufficient number are added now, before a decision, you would withdraw AfD? Or that doing so should count as part of decision. I don't want to do a lot of work for nothing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My response in this case specifically referred to the comment about keeping the article as historical record. Substantial coverage is still required even if a group is defunct.  As for withdrawing AFDs, I have a personal policy of not withdrawing AFDs unless I obviously made the nomination in error and no comments have been made (in which case, I will just delete my errant AFD page), because AFDs often spur positive changes for borderline articles (a good thing).
 * Your comment about "I don't want to do a lot of work for nothing" is the real kicker when it comes to AFDs. Someone could pour hours of work into an article nominated for deletion and it still gets deleted.  In the case of DAWN, I went through online and on Highbeam Research, and I've found a lot of mentions, but not any substantial coverage that would work towards clearing notability.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge to Opposition to the Iraq War. Insufficient reliable secondary sources exist to establish notability of group as a separate article, however, it should be included as part of the general survey of anti-war sentiment during the Iraq War. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2010 (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.