Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisters Against Violent Extremism


 * 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 to Women_Without_Borders. Redirecting to the parent organization for now. The consensus is that at this time the subject is not independently notable. If this changes in the future then the article can be restored. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sisters Against Violent Extremism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Not seeing significant coverage where this group is the subject of the article. Google News produces only a single article. Included references are largely to youtube videos produced by parent group Women without Boarders. Other references appear to be blogs, or ones where this organization is not the subject of the article. Not seeing how this might meet notability guidelines. The parent organization might however. RadioFan (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  —RadioFan (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Women Without Borders seems notable, so one solution would be to write that article, and stub and merge this one into it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect .Merge. I thought Women Without Borders was redlinked, but that's just the typo, Women without Borders... It already contains a section on this project at Women_Without_Borders. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Good catch, I agree that a redirect to the existing section would be the best course. If there are no objections in a day or so, I'll withdraw and redirect.--RadioFan (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Dear RadioFan, I appreciate and respect your comments on the SAVE article I posted but I must disagree with your opinion for the article’s deletion or merger with Women without Borders. It is true that SAVE was an initiative started by Women without Borders, however SAVE itself has drawn the interest from other Organizations who are now taking part in SAVE projects. Also in references to SAVE’s media coverage there has been quite a bit of coverage in Indian and Austrian publications: Hindustan times (Lucknow, India), Sunday Times (Lucknow, India), Sunday Express (Lucknow, India) and in Austria there is coverage in Kurier and Die Presse. I have seen clippings of these articles but I have not yet cited them it will take me a day or two to do so. Of course I may need your help to make sure that it is done properly to maintain Wikipedia quality standards. Please get back to me with your response whenever you are able. Thank you so much for your time and effort. SincerelyBdanna81 (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that a dedicated article is warranted. This topic can be sufficiently covered in the main Women WIthout Borders aritlce. Please add the references you have located.  They will be included when/if the article is merged into Women Without Borders.  This article will be redirected to that section so that no one gets lost.--RadioFan (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear RadioFan, I have added three new references to the article all of which are from reliable newspapers.There are many more but some are in Hindi, German, etc... and some cover events and information that is not yet mentioned in the article. In addition to this coverage there is also an up coming presentation for SAVE at Oxford University in late October. I also wanted to ask you why the SAVE article has been added to the Sexuality and Gender-related deletion discussions list, is the article offensive? I sincerely appreciate your time and effort.Bdanna81 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your reasoning. It's a feminist project, so appropriate for a listing that covers gender issues. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unclear. I wanted to ask if it being a feminist project was grounds for deletion because I read the page on Sexuality and Gender related deletion discussions but was not sure if it was part of the reason for the SAVE articles proposed deletion. I am Sorry again for the miscommunication.Bdanna81 (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We can sort deletion discussions into various lists - this is only to highlight them to editors who are interested in those topics. Fences  &amp;  Windows  04:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  21:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Comment - Any chance you could link to the specific references you have here, in the deletion discussion? --Odie5533 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources: Fences  &amp;  Windows  04:49, 11 October 2009 (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.