Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspies For Freedom (4th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. T. Canens (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aspies For Freedom[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aspies For Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable organization —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheZachDOTnet (talk • contribs) 04:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TheZachDOTnet (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is technically the fourth nomination, and should probably be moved there. —Soap— 04:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was moving it while you left this comment. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for nominator. How, exactly, is this organization not notable? Is there a problem with the four sources that have covered it and are referenced in the article, or is the organization not sufficiently broad in nature? —C.Fred (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On the whole, the article should be kept—or at least incubated rather than deleted altogether. I'm conflicted on this one. The nomination is weak: online forums can be notable. There was also no discussion on the talk page about the concerns with the article; it's been quiet for six months or so. I also, in the course of searching for sources, found where AFF is a favourite target of Encyclopedia Dramatics. On the other hand, the article as it currently exists is weakly sourced; I'm hard-pressed to say it meets WP:GNG, although one of the sources is a dead link, so I'm unwilling to make the blanket statement of no significant coverage. In the end, I'm just not convinced by the nominator that the organization is non-notable enough to warrant deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to do it, but I have to call the nominator's conduct into question. He's just made another weak nomination (WP:Articles for deletion/Wrong Planet (2nd nomination)) with the same weak rationale and same pre-emptive use of the {{Not a ballot}} template. Given that the account is relatively new, it raises the question of whether the nominations are just to make a point or further an agenda. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
previous attempts to delete were voted against by mainly users of the Aspies For Freedom forum including User:GarethNelson, User:Pika Pikachu2005 and user:David McNamara, User:AmyNelson, user:User:MttJocy, User:Intgr and others. Thats why the template not a ballot was quickly added. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. I second the questionable practice of a new account being so quick to delete autism-related topics with almost no explanation. Dayewalker (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How many nominations are there? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: This is the fourth, previous attempts to delete were voted against by mainly users of the Aspies For Freedom forum including User:GarethNelson, User:Pika Pikachu2005 and user:David McNamara, User:AmyNelson, user:User:MttJocy, User:Intgr and others. Thats why the template not a ballot was quickly added. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer to the question asked - within about twelve hours of its creation, the TheZachDOTnet account had nominated three articles for deletion. Most of this account's edits have been related to such deletion nominations. I'm suspecting sockpuppetry and/or block evasion, but may (of course) be wrong. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Your accusations of sock puppetry and ban evasion are unwarranted and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to all parties - if you go to Thezach.net, you will see that this person says, ""Currently I am working on several projects including... an autism advocacy and news website" --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think this should be Speedy Close as a WP:COI nomination . Codf1977 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Not relevant to establishing if organization is notable. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TheZachDOTnet is currently blocked, but only for a username violation. His new choice of username identifies himself as Zachary Lassiter (which is also on his website). I don't personally believe he is a previously blocked user or a sock, though. —Soap— 21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response a username switch request was just put in. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to autism rights movement The fact that the organization has its own website makes it quite notable. Also, the merging of Don't Play Me, Pay Me was quite successful. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge and Comment The fact an organization has a website does not make it noteable. I do however support a merger into autism rights movement. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a Merge vote in this case is that you're essentially saying "this organization does not meet the notability guidelines for its own article, and a merge to another article per WP:NNC should be forced on it". I agree with a merge at the editors' discretion, but not by it being enforced by AfD, because it does meet WP:N. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the circumstances of this nomination nearly caused a knee-jerk reaction to Keep, having visited the supposed references in that article I have to seriously wonder about the organization's true notability. Of the 4 refs, one is a press release by the subject of the article, one is a dead link, one does nothing more than mention the name of the organization, and the fourth doesn't mention the organization at all. Best I can tell they attempted to organize and failed to last. That there have been almost no constructive edits in the past year reinforce my feelings about this. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed the dead link... sort of: it now points to the magazine's paywall. The NYT article is indeed about the movement rather than the specific organization, but agreed--it's not the best ref. I did find a ref from late 2009, so there's a definite history of coverage for the topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, see Uncle Milty's comments. GregJackP (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Lexis-Nexis search for sources finds multiple in-depth reliable sources. The Saner piece is 2114 words, focusing specifically on this organization. There are other sources which can be added as well. While I empathize with the issues created by a new nominator appearing to be a COI, the simple fact is that this AfD should be closed as keep because this organization has been covered multiple times in reliable press. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I share Uncle Milty's concerns about the quality of the article, and the references, the guardian ref cites 20,000 members. While that may be a lie (anyone got that copy of G2?) other comments on here suggest there are reliable sources, and google suggests there are plenty of references on reliable sites (no I'm not suggesting google is a reliable source). That, combined with a reversion I just applied to that users edit to Autism Speaks using biased language, and a primary source, makes me think if the user is not a sock then they are at least editing (and nominating) to an agenda - lack of explanation supports that in my view. Bertcocaine (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (In all fairness to Uncle Milty, I added the Guardian ref after his !vote was cast) Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response If you actually look at their website [1] they list under 20,000 members currently. With the date of that article its clearly a lie. Also it should be noted that on forums many users are not active supporters of the organization much less members. Judging by the recent activity there is much less then 20,000 members. TheZachDOTnet (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that a newspaper publishes something which is inaccurate isn't important to whether or not the mentioned topic is notable. Please see WP:VNT. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — a notable organization with references. Shouldn't there be some sort of limit on renominations for deletion? Surely once notability is established, it is notable historically. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response - as noted earlier: :::previous attempts to delete were voted against by mainly users of the Aspies For Freedom forum including User:GarethNelson, Pika Pikachu2005 and user:David McNamara, User:AmyNelson, user:User:MttJocy, User:Intgr and other users ZacharyLassiter (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response so your suggestion users editing Wikipedia with bias and not a neutral point of view? Yet the third nomination for deletion was by User:Pika Pikachu2005 who you accuse of voting to keep. In your responses to comments on this page you have only once noted why you think the article is not notable, thereby expanding on your initial 4 word comment, which has been questioned several times above. Were the previous 3 all ballots? Or are you suggesting the 3 different Admins that closed the debate were not paying attention and ignoring bias from certain users? And what evidence do you have the the guardian article is 'clearly a lie'? Bertcocaine (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response (in list format to make more readable)
  • Clearly a lie: If you would of read what I typed you would see that it said 'If you actually look at their website [2] they list under 20,000 members currently.'
  • user:Pika Pikachu2005 voted also to keep the organization on [[3]] and [[4]].
  • I'm suggesting that the previous admins may not have been aware of bias by certain users.
  • I'm also suggesting the organization is not notable due to the fact that it is rarely referenced by news media, except for exact copies of their press releases. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response
  • Thanks for replying clearly, you're right the list format is better.
  • They may list under 20,000 members currently on their website - however that total could have reduced, and it is certainly no reason to accuse the Guardian of lying (a deliberate act) when it could be simply an error (without the article, who can tell?)
  • user:Pika Pikachu2005 nominated for deletion, and then put forward speedy delete - the history shows nothing about them voting to keep on that nomination (the third). They may have changed their mind, but that is every persons right
  • For your last two point, thank you for clarifying your opinion on the matter - I think more statements like that will help support your argument.
You have swayed me slightly - I still think Keep (mostly based on the arguments of other on here) but I accept your point that previous nominations may well have been skewed, and the Admins concerned may have missed this. Bertcocaine (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete It showed promise, but lately this organisation has shown that it does not have the influence imputed previously. It has in effect died as everything except a support site. This aspect is not notable and the article should therefore be removed. Addition of sources causes me to change my vote. GetDumb 07:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "It's not notable" is a poor reason for nomination. It exists, it's sourced. Within the ASD community it has a reasonably high profile, most as a backlash to the exclusionist viewpoint of Autism Speaks. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - having read the sources provided, they don't seem to me to provide sufficient coverage to pass the notability guideline. It is borderline though, as there is some coverage, and there may be more not immediately accessible online. Robofish (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IAW WP:SNOWBALL - refs have been added for the subject organization to six scholarly journals, one MSNBC bioethics article, and a BBC article that all discuss the subject organization. Katana0182 (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The news media seems to think well of it to quote them, and ask them for comment on things. [5] Dream Focus 03:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I expressed some concern awhile ago about sources. This issue has now been resolved as notability has now been established, and in a very big way. Recommend to the nominator that this AfD be withdrawn. AinslieL (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep per massive improvements by Jclemens. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In all fairness, my improvements were quite a bit more modest than those by Katana0182. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's significant coverage to reach the bar of notability. Notability isn't transient, so the current state of the organization isn't really relevant. Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aspies_For_Freedom_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1137582096"