Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Wave Feminists


 * 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. Actually, there is consensus to redirect and merge to the extent editorial consensus supports - but there's no consensus about where to. So that's left as an exercise for editors to figure out...  Sandstein  21:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

New Wave Feminists

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 09:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect - some news buzz surrounding the Women's March on Washington, but next to nothing on the New Wave Feminists beyond that. This should be covered in the Women's March on Washington article. Huon (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - No reason this article should be aborted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeVeeed (talk • contribs) 20:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note I just found a source that interviewed the New Wave Feminists. This was long before the Women's March. The source is here. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  21:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Extra Note - I also found this source. this source, which is ok. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  22:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect I did an online search for <"new wave feminists" -"women's march"> and all I got of meaning was the same article linked above by Riley. Redirect it to the relevant section, add R to section and R with possibilities and maybe someone can come along and expand it in the future. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect Just to be fair, I ran news archive searches with some likely keywords, and found nothing.  The article found by User:RileyBugz in The Federalist certainly counts towards notability, but even added together it is not enough to justify a stand-alone article unless more sources are found.  Failing that, Merge & Redirect to 2017 Women's March.  There is too much coverage of this incident to advocate delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Found Another source, I tried a different search, Here's coverage of NWF in Patheos.  from a year ago.  Not sufficient, imo, but it seems possible that a competent editor might be able to bring this article up to snuff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Change to tepid Keep Changing my iVote after running a news search, now that the inauguration / Women's March feel like ancient history. The fact is, as shown in this news search by date, that this incident continues to get a good deal of coverage.   Here, just as examples, are the Worcester, Massachusetts Telegram & Gazette (big city daily) and the Weekly Standard (national political weekly) .E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f  eminist  03:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - Transwiki to Wikiversity. Related to feminism/gender studies/anthropology/women's studies. Michael Ten (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Michael Ten appears to misunderstand. This is not an article about an idea; it is an article about an activist group with this name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Anthropologists and political scientists study activists groups, no? Seems like potential data for political scientists or anthropologists. Academics study social movements. Michael Ten (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Do 's provided sources make the article meet WP:GNG?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note the source found by User:RileyBugz: in The Federalist, it does provide a portrait of this organization.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to third wave-feminism.  Dr Strauss   talk  16:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That truly doesn't work, Third-wave feminism asserts women's right to have an abortion, whereas this is a group of self-defined anti-abortion feminists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Target for redirect So, there is Pro-life feminism.  Perhaps this article could be redirected and merged to a very brief summary at that article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a news source; their kerfuffle with the Women's March is a flash in the pan, and there aren't any usable sources on the group that precede the kerfuffle. They get mentioned in passing in a couple of sources on how the anti-abortion movement tries to rebrand itself, but I'm not sure that those sources justify even a partial merge to anti-abortion feminism as opposed to (maybe) a mention in anti-abortion movement. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It obviously needs improvement, but this group generated news prior the recent event with the women's march.                          Sondra.kinsey (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)