Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrong Planet (2nd nomination)

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 - nominated by a now blocked user, apparently not in good faith. Deletion rationale has unanimously been rejected, no delete votes. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Planet[edit]

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

Not a notable organization TheZachDOTnet (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Strong keep. Looking at the references list, and some of the articles in question there, there has been significant coverage in reliable sources, so the organization meets WP:GNG. This is also the second AfD nomination by TheZachDOTnet tonight, a newly-registered account (although apparently he's been editing as an IP for some time). Both nominated subjects are Asperger/autism websites; coupled with his pre-emptive use of the {{Not a vote}} template, I have to ask whether the nomination is in good faith. —C.Fred (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per C.Fred. "Not a notable organization" doesn't seem to be enough rationale to delete, when the sources show significant coverage. Zach, could you elaborate? Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article is already copiously sourced to reliable sources that discuss its subject extensively. Its notability is established. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources--SPhilbrick T 12:07, 9 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 13:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspies For Freedom (4th nomination), I think that this should be Speedy Closed as a WP:COI nom. Codf1977 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 15:49, 9 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.