Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Museum of Women


 * 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

International Museum of Women

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: Fails third party reliable source.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as per copy violation tag --BrucePodger (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete copyvio of . B.Wind (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * speedy delete as copyvio, but no problem with re-creating in the future if it can be re-written without copyvio and the peacocking that comes with it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. Permission to use this was apparentlly granted, see diff from Talk:International Museum of Women, and the removal of copyvio tag. - Nabla (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The copyvio has definitely been addressed. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Reliable 3rd party source, from Anthropology News March 2007. Copyvio issue from before has apparently been resolved. Still requires a cleanup. SunCreator (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a good article, albeit with some POV issues and non-neutral wording. Any doubts about copyright infringement have been addressed. The Museum is undoubtedly of encyclopedic interest. I have attempted a minor cleanup to remove non-encyclopedic use of adjectives, and remove errors created by copy/paste of text from IMOW website.--Benmoreassynt (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs cleanup but sustained 3rd-party WP:RS coverage is availble to establish notability and fix the article. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - withdrew my delete vote after seeing copyvio problem has been addressed - otherwise don't know enough about notability for these sorts of things to make an informed comment. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep while there are some press releases in the mix, there is significant RS coverage that more than establishes notability. This can easily be added to the museums project's to-do list if kept for clean up TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 02:00, 14 April 2008 (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.