Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Declaration International


 * 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 __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  23:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Women's Declaration International

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Delete This article is unworthy of Wikipedia, horribly written, confusing, biased, and controlled merciless from edits. If this is what wikipedia is, the article should be deleted. People can find better sources of unbiased information than wikipedia ideologues. Then the activists will have fewer pages to monitor and control. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender,  and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a lot of garbage that comes up when you search the group on Google News, but the cites already in the article demonstrate notability. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the subject is notable. See SIRS.
 * Which are the multiple sources that satisfy the criteria?
 * There is one from PinkNews (and we can't use any others from PinkNews to establish reliability).
 * But looking at the other sources in the article: No consensus on WP:RS that Vice is reliable. Neither Common Weal, a think tank, nor Jezebel, a blog, are reliable sources.
 * There are some Norwegian sources that may count. In good faith, what's the case? AndyGordon (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep — It seems like OP is just upset that their edits got reverted and is lashing out. Despite ample opportunity they have yet to point out specific issues with the article, mostly just attacking other editors. I guess they're trying to say it's a WP:ATP? But as stated on the talk page, if the majority view of a subject is negative, the article will naturally take a negative tone, per WP:NOTNEUTRAL. --Pokelova (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm being practical. Wikipedia can't afford to have articles only written by detractors of any topic, and who revert helpful edits, like moving material to a criticism section rather than every paragraph is filled with "X, but critics say Y" format that activists seem to do when given free rein to write and block edits. Where is "Neutral point of view" under that? Tom Ruen (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My first thought on seeing your recent behaviour was to assume that yours was a recently registered troll account of the sort that we unfortunately see all too often. On looking further, I was shocked and saddened to see that you have been editing since 2004 and that your behaviour here is completely out of character. My second thought was to wonder whether your account had been compromised. Assuming that this is not the case then I implore you to take a break to deal with whatever has triggered this unusual behaviour and then, when you feel able, to go back to constructive editing in the subject areas where you are able to contribute constructively. Please don't throw away your almost two decades old Wikipedia account over this. DanielRigal (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Imagine a "women's rights declaration" being reduced to this summary that doesn't even say what it is for or why? Tom Ruen (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * '''The group is known for publishing the Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights, co-authored by Jeffreys and Brunskell-Evans, which called for the "elimination" of "the practice of transgenderism" and for the UK to repeal the Gender Recognition Act.


 * Procedural speedy keep. No even arguably valid reason has been advanced to delete. The nomination is just an incoherent diatribe that attacks other editors and the project in general. We don't need to waste time on this. Let's just close it. If anybody can see an actual reason to delete then they would be better off starting a new AfD where we can discuss their nomination without being distracted by this nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not have badly written articles controlled by activists. It is preposterous. It invalidates all of wikipedia when people see this. Better to have no articles that bias. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The more you allege a vague conspiracy theory the less people are going to take you seriously. Please stop. This is helping nobody. DanielRigal (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we need superbly written articles controlled by both activists and detractors. Neutral point of view. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Biased, no, it's neutral and properly sourced. "I don't like it" isn't a reason to delete the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural speedy keep. Note that the nominator was pblocked from the article as a result of their edits. I would close this discussion myself if I weren't involved. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 03:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

*Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. Delete unless evidence shown and agreed that it meets the criteria at WP:ORGCRIT. [User:AndyGordon|AndyGordon]] (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This was clearly a WP:POINTy "nomination" by a disruptive editor who has now been blocked for their disruptive edits. The now blocked editor links to their Twitter account which includes such statements as "Transgenderism is a destructive identity" and "Transing children is child abuse," so it's clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. The article seems well-referenced and this is in fact widely considered one of the more extreme anti-trans groups by all credible sources that I've seen. --Tataral (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. People have now kindly provided several links showing it meets the criteria. AndyGordon (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per AndyGordon. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The group is clearly notable, as demonstrated by the sources in the article. It seems to have the same level of notoriety that LGB Alliance and Women's Liberation Front have, with significant, regular coverage from right-wing sources such as Fox, and is active in dozens of countries, so it's one of the more well-known (and outspokenly) anti-trans groups out there. --Tataral (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, Fox News is marginally reliable: we can't use political articles in Fox to establish notability. We need a list of multiple reliable sources that satisfy SIRS. AndyGordon (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * From the Fox coverage we can see that they are indeed a cause célèbre for the right wing media, which is a reasonable thing to point out in an AfD even though we cannot say that in the article without falling into original research unless we have a reliable sources supporting it. Anyway, the nomination here is nonsensical. The best thing would be to close this without any prejudice to you, or anybody else, putting together a better nomination and trying another AfD. DanielRigal (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources already included in the article clearly establish notability. The recent Fox articles mentioned here are just examples of supplementary sources that demonstrate how they are, as DanielRigal said, a cause célèbre for the right wing media in the US. Rowling just tweeted in support of the group, this is a well known group in the field of anti-trans activism internationally, probably the only thing both its supporters and critics would agree on. --Tataral (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - this appears to be a nonprofit organization with national/international scale, so the alternative WP:NONPROFIT criteria of the WP:NCORP guideline can apply, and requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. Sources include The Scotsman in 2019 (focused on advocacy activity in Scotland, noting it began in New York); WP:PINKNEWS in 2021 (includes a focus on the organization, its advocacy, co-founders, and supporting organizations); there is also significant coverage of their advocacy in the US, e.g. Columbia Missourian in 2023 (includes a focus on their model legislation). Beccaynr (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And also there is this in The Australian, seems to be the same organisation. OK, so yes there are enough reliable sources for this count as notable.  Thank you. AndyGordon (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nominator was blocked. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources in article and Beccaynr above.  // Timothy :: talk  12:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources that were already in the article at the time of nomination met the WP:NONPROFIT SNG criteria, and that's only improved over the last day as has been adding to the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. As per @Oaktree b CT55555 (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2023 (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.