Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance


 * 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. There is consensus that the article is notable after the significant addition of reliable, independent secondary sources.(non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After pruning, it became clear to me that this does not appear to be a notable organization. Please view the history to see what I removed--you'll find that I did not prune a single, relevant, reliable source. The COI is evident from the history as well, by the way. A Google News search revealed very, very little--the most reliable thing I found was a mention in an article from the Huffington Post, but that says nothing of substance about the organization. All of the hits in a Google Book search that I looked at are duds (like this one)--which leaves this study guide and this mention in a note. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, some of the concerns by the nom are valid, but there is indeed enough coverage in news as well as scholarly sources from to show secondary referenced discussion to retain and expand and improve the article going forwards. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Add them and we'll talk, Cirt! I searched and found nothing. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Organization previously known as Woodhull Freedom Foundation, therefore additional sources may also be found at
 * 1) in addition to
 * , and there are a few more results without using the last word, so
 * Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This was easy to have missed, as it appears the organization only recently changed their name, naturally there would therefore be more references found under the previous name, see pagemove at diff link. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Again, the nominator does raise some valid points about the prior state of the article. I think the best thing to try going forwards is to essentially gut most of the prior versions of the article (already done quite a bit by nom, which is a good thing when looking at prior state of article) and start over sticking to factual presentation of material with some primary and hopefully mostly additional secondary sources. I'll get on doing some more in-depth research for this soon. :) Meanwhile, as far as retention, it does look like there's enough secondary source coverage when taking into account both versions of the name of the organization as noted, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Okay, please see this version of the article after some research and additional sourcing. I've gone ahead and removed basically most of the info text from the prior poor version of the article, and built back in with info text from referenced sources. It's a bit better now. :) Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Cirt's edits. ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Cirt did an excellent job with the article and it definitely passes WP:ORG, but most of the links used mention the org in a peripheral way that wouldn't count for WP:N. This is more of an issue for later than for now, as the article has enough RS. Again, great work, Cirt. czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cirt's work. It sounds notable to me. Cavarrone (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2012 (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.