Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autism Network International

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Network International[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. There are no significant sources about this organization Ylevental (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and Improve The nom is quite correct that this article does not pass GNG as is, but a couple of google searches leads me to believe that sources exist, at least for "Autreat", an annual retreat this organization sponsors (which may suggest the article should be renamed "Autreat" but that's up to article editors). For starters, Slate gives some non-trivial coverage in this article, citing a printed academic work. The NYT link in the Wiki article is only trivial coverage, but mentions in two major publications based on just a cursory look suggests sources are out there. Improve the article, don't delete. -Markeer 17:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more sources to the article. It passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's significant coverage of ANI in independent sources. CatPath (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2016 (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.