Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Women's National Network Australia


 * 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.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Muslim Women's National Network Australia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

the article seems designed to advance their cause, not for providing information about the association. NOT ADVOCACY holds even when the advocacy is something we would all support personally.  DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article comfortably passes WP:GNG - it has coverage in multiple independent sources and contributes towards fulfilling a significant gap in our coverage. The only grounds given for deletion is that the nominator claims its "designed to advance their cause", despite the fact there's not a shred of evidence for that conclusion. Nominations like this really frustrate me because they make editor retention so difficult: we get a newish editor who writes a bunch of good content about diverse underrepresented topics that badly need some editorial attention, and someone does a drive-by bid to delete their work by making baseless accusations about them - why would they keep contributing? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep even Speedy Keep.  More than sufficiently sourced from independent reliable sources.  Cannot see why it was AfDed at all.  Style could be improved, and it needs some copy edit, eg MWNNA versus WMNNA, grammar, etc., but such is not at all sufficient for grounds for deletion.  NOM's statement seems to be at complete odds to article content?  Aoziwe (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: So deletion was preferred over copy editing an article about something that is notable? I don't get it. SL93 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Probably could do with a copyedit, but notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is my first attempt at an article, so by all means fix whatever you think is wrong with it. However it is incorrect to claim it is written to "advance the cause." I have no connection to this organisation. I wrote this article as part of the Women In Red project which is trying to rectify the known statistical gender imbalance on Wikipedia. And in creating this page, I quickly came to understand why there is such an imbalance, because it seems the standards required to get such an article accepted from draft to published, and then also not get deleted, seems higher for this article about a muslim women's organisation (i.e. I have been editing article, and some have pre-existing conflicts of interest, lack of citations, puffery, etc that somehow made it through the gauntlet unchallenged, yet the resistance I've felt to this article has made me wonder why I bother). If you had a problem with the article, why not talk to me about it first? Or respond to the question I posted on the talk page? Or fix what is wrong with it? If you'd taken even a second to read my profile you'd see I've clearly stated I'm new to editing wikipedia, I'm still learning, and I don't pretend to be an expert. My thanks to the people who have voted keep or added comment here; I appreciate you taking the time for this article I created, and that you are welcoming of newcomers like myself. Powertothepeople (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Powertothepeople. Please stick with it.  For a first article it was better than quite literally hundreds of thousands of other first and not first articles !!    Aoziwe (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't detect any tone of advocacy—other than the lack of the dreaded "Controversies" section—and there is no evidence that the author(s) have any connection with the subject. --Canley (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've seen some strange attempts at deleting articles from newcomers but this is one of the most peculiar. Without justification.--Ipigott (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, surely. Advocacy? – Well, it doesn't look as if it has been written by anyone opposed to the organisation (against Muslims, or women, or Australia) but that's fine by me. And it seems thoroughly sensible, worthwhile and, for all I know, balanced. It's good we have this article. Thincat (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: per my comments when I originally declined it in draft form. It has undertones of advocacy.  Most of the keep !votes argue that we shouldn't delete it because it's from a new contributor which seems unjust.  I concur with, even though most of us would support what the organisation stands for, if it advocates it positively, it fails WP:NPOV.    Dr Strauss   talk   17:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This demonstrates a disturbing ignorance of Wikipedia policy for an AfC reviewer: even if it did have "undertones of advocacy" (of which no evidence has been provided), we don't actually delete articles for these things, we tag them for cleanup. (And like Canley, I also can't detect any such tones apart from the lack of the dreaded "controversies" section: if anything, this !vote (and the AfC decline) seems to demonstrate some weird hostility about the subject, not about the article.) The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The creator just said above that they weren't connected to the organization. So now, not only are you trying to get a notable article deleted, but you are assuming bad faith on the part of the creator. This isn't a case for deletion and this is a case of you not assuming good faith. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of being directly connected with the organization.  I discourage all wikipedians from doing advocacy here, even for things they -- and I -- support personally. I have realized that it is quite difficult to avoid this when working on articles for things that one wishes to see publicized, but it remains essential. It is possible to learn how to work even on what you love with an appropriately neutral detachment, but I strongly discourage beginners from attempting it--it is an altogether different mindset than the usual sort of writing. My experience is that it is easier to manage in doing bios than articles on organizations.  Myself, I don't even attempt it. I hope it is not easy to  guess from my work here what organizations I support; I may leave traces in comments, but not in articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if the creator is trying to advocate for the organization (which I doubt), that still is only a reason for copy editing and not deletion. SL93 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with SL93. As pointed out by others here, the Wikipedia policy regarding deletion says "A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality" and also has a long list of "considerations" to consider before listing something for deletion which I won't copy out the whole list, but here is perhaps the most pertinent one: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." DGG went straight to delete without any such discussion. DrStrauss, regarding your own reason for rejecting the article "not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article" I think your standards are too high for a starter article. I've edited plenty of pages that had real issues of POV, puffery, lack of citations, unclear notability, incomplete unclear sentences and paragraphs, and it didn't occur to me to recommend for deletion except in the one case when it really obviously wasn't notable after a search (a listing for a business that had no online profile beyond its website). The other articles I set about improving. That is why wikipedia has a grading system. Most articles start out low grade, and over time people add to them and improve them and they get better. Collaboration. Powertothepeople (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Among the reasons given when this article was rejected at AfC, as mentioned above, was "does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.", which appeared completely unjustified, suggesting an enthusiasm to reject. Pam  D  07:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's to some degree the fault of the AfC templates--it's the nearest one to "the content does not seem to represent a NPOV". Of course, one can and should when applicable write a custom decline reason, but people often don't. It's not reasonable to hold an editor responsible for the exact wording of each template they apply from the limited selection. It takes a while to realize the extent to which they need adjustment.  DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So through what channels can non-AfC members urge that the messages be changed so that rejection is not made on inappropriate grounds for lack of an appropriate built-in message? Formality of style has nothing to do with NPOV - and this didn't have as much as a "didn't" of informality. And please note DGG's comment about the need to adjust the built-in comments when they are inappropriate. Thanks.  Pam  D  14:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , being a member of the group doesn't help., I, and others have been trying to get changes in the templates for several years now. One or another excuse has always been found for not doing them; this is one of the reason why many of us want to rework the submission system entirely from the ground up--and why many want to integrate it with NPP. What we What I personally do when needed , which is most of the time unless it's so utterly obvious that a standard template fits, is to either use a custom reason, or to modify  the text after the template has been placed to meet the particular circumstance. Anyone who knows enough to work on AFCs should know enough to give proper explanations. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, David. It confirms my feeling that AfC is a ghastly mess allowing power-crazy editors to make life difficult for good faith new editors. I'll stay well away and carry on with my stub-sorting, WiR, occcasional NPP, random article creation, and wikignoming. Pam  D  07:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article can easily be toned down or rewritten to address the advocacy concern.104.163.153.14 (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article meets WP:GNG, it just needs some copy editing. Don't see where it is pushing its cause. NZ Footballs Conscience  (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2017 (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.