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. The article has now received significant improvement with a rewrite and sufficient sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queeruption[edit]

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

Foe over 2.5 years tagged as nonnotable without improvement Staszek Lem (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Google books has a lot of published works that cover this topic.Chanchiqua (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - @Chanchiqua - Not exactly, several of those are small mentions or irrelevant. Intial comment sidetracked due to edit conflict: I found several results with Google News archives but one of the websites (beyondrobson.com) that supplied several of those results appears to have closed. I also found this indybay.org link which claims that the festival has been held in London, New York, San Francisco, Berlin, Amsterdam, Sydney and Barcelona but I question that website's reliability. This San Francisco Bay Guardian article mentions that it started in 1998. I noticed that half of the results were supplied by either BeyondRobson or infoshop.org, suggesting that this festival receiving little to no significant coverage. The other results are simply event listings, not English (but seem trivial as well) and all of the archives results are from 2006 to 2008 so I believe that this festival may have failed or ended. Google Books provided small mentions here, here, here, here and here. I also found this book which also mentions 1998 as the establishment date and continues with some possibly helpful information but the preview never continues with a clear view of the pages. This result cites the festival's website as the source for the information, I also found other small mentions that aren't worth listing. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal I still see numerous non-trivial sources spanning several years implying continuing coverage, furthermore your inability to obtain old information is what's irrelevant, the wayback machine will do a fine job or digging up the old articles.Chanchiqua (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found "numerous non-trivial sources spanning several years implying continuing coverage", please list them. Furthermore, how is my ability to obtain old information irrelevant? I explicitly stated that I have only found old articles and zero recent links, suggesting that this festival may have failed or ended. SwisterTwister talk 14:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There is a valid argument that not each iteration of this international queer anarchist festival deserves its own article but the collective overall article has plenty of sources including journals and books that do discuss this as part of the larger movements of the political left and anarchists in general. I stopped adding cites after the first of six pages from the Google Scholar link (which includes some books) after the first page. I can certainly add more but it would take an investment of some time as there is so much and not all is available online. The Internet Archive is a likely trove of online articles but alas will only help find those articles that google has cached in some way. That the events may have ended for good (I'm not sure if anarchists do officially end these events or if it's a matter of no new group forming to organize one) is of no consequence as the original series we have is plenty notable in itself. Also it's worth mention I didn't yet do a wider www search as I was finding so many sources to start with, a wider www search would start to pull up an abundance of LGBTQ press that is still left out of Google News but remains plenty reliable as a source, this is a systematic bias against LGBTQ news organizations and is worth mentioning as this event is more likely to be covered by those businesses. Insomesia (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary sourcing, exceeds standards for significant discussion in reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2012 (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.