Talk:Feminists Against Censorship

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Feminism

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Nudity Low‑importance

	Nudity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nudity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of nudity and naturism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NudityWikipedia:WikiProject NudityTemplate:WikiProject Nuditynudity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women's History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article[edit]

This article was originally deleted after a AfD Debate (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Feminists_Against_Censorship). Deletion review appears to have quickly established this was a mistake: See this diff [1] (this may not be the last version of the page with comments, but is at the time of writing.

Deletion Review[edit]

This article was recreated following a debate on Deletion Review. The debate is below.

Feminists Against Censorship[edit]

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. [2]
The Independent has cited them several times, twice in 1995 [3], [4] (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. [5]
In 1999, The Sunday Herald (a Scottish newspaper) cited them regarding pornography statistics. [6]
Cited in "Sexuality" by Joseph Bristow [7],.
Mentioned in the Spring 1993 "Feminist Review" [8].
Mentioned in "Knockin' On Heaven's Door: The Hebrew Bible and Cultural Criticism" by Roland Boer [9]
Mentioned in "Gender and Social Psychology" by Vivien Burr [10].
Mentioned in "A Queer Romance: Lesbians, Gay Men and Popular Culture", edited by Paul Burston and Colin Richardson [11].

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)[reply]

Undelete A few of the sources seem a little tangential, but I agree, there has been a miscarriage of wikijustice in this case. It would have been nice if the sources had been included in the article; will you agree to take responsibility for including them in the article? Furthermore, as for User:Dlyons493, while he made a mistake by apparently not even bothering to do a reasonable googling of the group, please bear in mind that WP:V puts the onus on editors to prove that something exists, not the other way around. Anyway, that doesn't change the fact that the AfD was in error; no shame in fixing that error. (As a side note, this whole thing is why strict deletionism is a flawed philosophy - it tends to throw out a lot of babies with the bathwater, and since histories get deleted with the article, it's hard to fix it without the intervention of some very overworked sysops). Captainktainer 11:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Undelete. It's not unusual in my experience for people to claim non-notability in and AfD in the face of significant independent reporting. Stephen B Streater 13:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. The nominator appears to have conducted little or no research prior to deciding that the article should be deleted. FAC has produced books through established publishers such as Virago Press and Pluto Press. Its members continue to be quoted [12] and write letters [13] in the established press. It has lobbied the British Board of Film Classification (the government appointed film censor in the UK) and received official replies [14]. In short, a reasonably well read Briton interested in the debate on censorship or on feminism in general is likely to encounter the name of the group and want to know a bit about them. This is where an encyclopedia comes in. --Tony Sidaway 14:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have undeleted as it appears a clear-cut mistake was made in this case. It probably happened because the closer counted the votes and saw a decent majority for delete - there were several delete votes before the full facts of the case came out. A cautionary tale about not just counting votes! Pcb21 Pete 14:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete is the correct choice, as closer failed to note the shift in the course of the debate. I don't see a compelling need to relist, but I don't object to it either. Xoloz 15:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't it be ironic if this had been deleted by a man. Stephen B Streater 16:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete But relist on AfD. I'm not completely convinced of their notability. JoshuaZ 20:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does FAQ still exist?[edit]

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)[reply]

The link to the FAQ web-page shows that the domain is for sale[edit]

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)Rich[reply]