Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Against Sexism

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 speedy keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Against Sexism

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sourced content or context. Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tagged for speedy deletion by
WP:A1. Aasim (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not sure that we can apply A1 since previous versions of the article had sufficient context, even if the content was unsourced. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I didn't see the AfD template. I reverted back to the last admin version who had reverted the blanking and call to speedy it, and cleaned it up. It was easy to source. Bands like U2 played RAS events, and RAS archives are at Universities like Harvard. It was simple enough to cut the unsourced stuff and source what was left, or add new sourced content. It's a small, but sourced article now. -
☼ 23:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Adding, as others have noted, that as Hoponpop is the nom, and has now switched to Keep, this nom is now basically withdrawn, making this a Speedy/Snow Keep. -

☼ 18:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep now that it's been restored with sources.Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There are several high-quality sources that specifically discuss the topic cited, absolutely no reason to delete. The nominator has also functionally withdrawn their nomination so there’s basically nothing left to debate. Dronebogus (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sourcing demonstrates that
WP:GNG is met Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment the nominator has changed to keep, so this can be speedy closed. Chubbles (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this definitely was a widely discussed movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s in the UK, in British music magazines and in Spare Rib and other influential magazines – some of the material from the time can be seen here [1]. Richard3120 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.