Talk:Feminists Against Censorship

message: This article was recreated following a debate on Deletion Review. The debate is below.
==== Feminists Against Censorship ====
:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminists Against Censorship
Dlyons493 listed this page for deletion on the grounds that they were a "non-notable very diffuse group with tenuous existence.".  I voted to keep.  While I couldn't find a notability policy dealing with organisations or pressure groups, I drew on the "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" criterion, which appears in one form or another in several guidelines.  Accordingly, I listed the following sources from British newspapers and books independent of the organisation to testify for their existence and notability: 
* The British Film Institute found them worth linking to.
* In 1998, the definitely notable Peter Tatchell stated in The Independent (a British national newspaper) that they paid a fine for him - quite remarkable for a group which doesn't actually exist. 
* The Independent has cited them several times, twice in 1995 ,  (describing them as "a libertarian strand of the feminist movement"), and in their 2005 obituary of Andrea Dworkin, stating that the group was created in opposition to her views. 
* In 1999, The Sunday Herald (a Scottish newspaper) cited them regarding pornography statistics. 
* Cited in "Sexuality" by Joseph Bristow ,.
* Mentioned in the Spring 1993 "Feminist Review" .
* Mentioned in "Knockin' On Heaven's Door: The Hebrew Bible and Cultural Criticism" by Roland Boer 
* Mentioned in "Gender and Social Psychology" by Vivien Burr .
* Mentioned in "A Queer Romance: Lesbians, Gay Men and Popular Culture", edited by Paul Burston and Colin Richardson .
SushiGeek's decision to delete came through this morning.
Reading the debate, and looking at the sources, it seems as if Dlyons493's personal opinion that the group doesn't really exist has been given credence without him being asked to prove it.  What happened to WP:NOR?  Shouldn't he be required to provide some evidence for his personal opinion before having it taken as fact?  Isn't that original research?
He also claimed that the group was purely a mouthpiece for Avedon Carol, when even if this were true it wouldn't mean that the group was undeserving of an article, if it was otherwise notable.  He also did not respond to my pointing out the list of publications on their website, which numbered five, of which one was written by Avedon Carol and one co-edited; the page lists five other published authors associated with the group.  As far as I know, group size alone does not determine which organisations are deserving of Wikipedia articles.
I can provide more sources if necessary; these are just the ones I listed in the AFD debate. Vashti 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with WP:V about that, which was why I listed relevant sources to demonstrate the group's notability.  I'll certainly include them there.  Unfortunately they were mostly ignored in the  AFD debate, which is something I've never seen happen before - my experience has been that someone says "this isn't notable", and if someone else disagrees they can say "yes it is, here are some sources".  As you say, something seems to have gone awry in this particular case. Vashti 12:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion Review

message: :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminists Against Censorship
Dlyons493 listed this page for deletion on the grounds that they were a "non-notable very diffuse group with tenuous existence.".  I voted to keep.  While I couldn't find a notability policy dealing with organisations or pressure groups, I drew on the "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" criterion, which appears in one form or another in several guidelines.  Accordingly, I listed the following sources from British newspapers and books independent of the organisation to testify for their existence and notability: 
* The British Film Institute found them worth linking to.
* In 1998, the definitely notable Peter Tatchell stated in The Independent (a British national newspaper) that they paid a fine for him - quite remarkable for a group which doesn't actually exist. 
* The Independent has cited them several times, twice in 1995 ,  (describing them as "a libertarian strand of the feminist movement"), and in their 2005 obituary of Andrea Dworkin, stating that the group was created in opposition to her views. 
* In 1999, The Sunday Herald (a Scottish newspaper) cited them regarding pornography statistics. 
* Cited in "Sexuality" by Joseph Bristow ,.
* Mentioned in the Spring 1993 "Feminist Review" .
* Mentioned in "Knockin' On Heaven's Door: The Hebrew Bible and Cultural Criticism" by Roland Boer 
* Mentioned in "Gender and Social Psychology" by Vivien Burr .
* Mentioned in "A Queer Romance: Lesbians, Gay Men and Popular Culture", edited by Paul Burston and Colin Richardson .
SushiGeek's decision to delete came through this morning.
Reading the debate, and looking at the sources, it seems as if Dlyons493's personal opinion that the group doesn't really exist has been given credence without him being asked to prove it.  What happened to WP:NOR?  Shouldn't he be required to provide some evidence for his personal opinion before having it taken as fact?  Isn't that original research?
He also claimed that the group was purely a mouthpiece for Avedon Carol, when even if this were true it wouldn't mean that the group was undeserving of an article, if it was otherwise notable.  He also did not respond to my pointing out the list of publications on their website, which numbered five, of which one was written by Avedon Carol and one co-edited; the page lists five other published authors associated with the group.  As far as I know, group size alone does not determine which organisations are deserving of Wikipedia articles.
I can provide more sources if necessary; these are just the ones I listed in the AFD debate. Vashti 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with WP:V about that, which was why I listed relevant sources to demonstrate the group's notability.  I'll certainly include them there.  Unfortunately they were mostly ignored in the  AFD debate, which is something I've never seen happen before - my experience has been that someone says "this isn't notable", and if someone else disagrees they can say "yes it is, here are some sources".  As you say, something seems to have gone awry in this particular case. Vashti 12:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Feminists Against Censorship]] 

message: Their webpage no longer exists and I cannot find that it was moved to somewhere else.
~~Rich  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.4.62 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does FAQ still exist? 

message: Either they have let the web page die or they have moved it elsewhere.
12.218.82.130 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The link to the FAQ web-page shows that the domain is for sale