Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aspies For Freedom (4th nomination): Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:15, 9 June 2010 editJclemens (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,423 edits →Aspies For Freedom: keep← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:31, 9 June 2010 edit undoJclemens (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,423 edits →Aspies For Freedom: responsesNext edit →
Line 24:		Line 24:
	:: Then I think this should be '''Speedy Close''' as a ] nomination . ] (]) 14:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)		:: Then I think this should be '''Speedy Close''' as a ] nomination . ] (]) 14:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
	*'''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. --<span style="outline:1px dotted #d1bfa4;"><font color="#ffffff">\|</font> ] \| ] <font color="#ffffff">\|</font></span> 14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)		*'''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. --<span style="outline:1px dotted #d1bfa4;"><font color="#ffffff">\|</font> ] \| ] <font color="#ffffff">\|</font></span> 14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
			**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. ] (]) 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
	*'''Delete''' Not notable, see Uncle Milty's comments. ] (]) 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)		*'''Delete''' Not notable, see Uncle Milty's comments. ] (]) 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
	*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)</small>		*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 20:31, 9 June 2010

Aspies For Freedom

AfDs for this article:

(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)

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 Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages 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}}.

TheZachDOTnet (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment This is technically the fourth nomination, and should probably be moved there. —Soap— 04:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I was moving it while you left this comment. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Response to Question The organization is actually only an online forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheZachDOTnet (talk • contribs) 04:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Question: How many nominations are there? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 07:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

Then I think this should be Speedy Close as a WP:COI nomination . Codf1977 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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)
- 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)
Delete Not notable, see Uncle Milty's comments. GregJackP (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
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)

Categories: