Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advocates For Change


 * 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Advocates For Change

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional article for local organization in one city dealing with a problem that is general, where there are many nationwide organizations. I do not se themas notable in any sense, and no notice besides the immediate area. WP is not Wikilocal.  DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a state wide organization, not a local one. It is mentioned at least in 3 independent RS directly. As it has its origins under Colorado CURE, there are some more indirect mentions of this group dating back as far as 2005, Not necessarily the most notable organization, but not non-notable either, IMO. ViperFace (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's state level. But we don;t include state branches of national societies. Even for much larger ones. Not the NAACP, Not the NRA. Not the ACLU. Not anybody. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Well, I kind of see your point but don't completely agree. Is there WP policy covering this? I might be splitting hairs here but I'm not sure if calling AFC as a state branch of anything is entirely correct. AFAIK, AFC has been around longer than RSOL (under which state level groups have started loosely coming together) which has national scope in it's advocacy. If I understand correctly, the state groups that are associated with RSOL have merely adopted some of the same goals, but remain otherwise completely independent. Some state groups even seem to be more notable than loose umbrella organization they are part of. This is not the case with this group, but I mean if there is a blanket WP policy covering this, it's not necessarily wise in all cases. This is bit clumsy comparison, but I would liken this to NHL and individual teams with goal of playing hockey, which they do independently, but come together under NHL. I'm not US citizen so I don't know much about the formation of ACLU or NAACP, whether they came to be from multiple state level groups or was it the other way around, or how much control the national level organizations hold over state groups. Obviously, I'm for keeping this article, but let's see what happens. ViperFace (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is only one ref in the article that is about the organization--everything else is about the sex offender problem. This therefore fails to meet WP:GNG, which is normally our minimum guideline (Professional Hockey teams have hundreds or thousands of articles written about them.) And, since  the WP article talks  almost entirely about the need for reform in this area and not about the group, it could in addition probably be speedy deleted via G11 for being promotionalism.  DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge - This information is quite interesting and would provide a more neutral point of view if it were merged into the Sex offender article. When and if this organization goes 'national' and becomes more notable on its own, then that would be the time for its own article.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 15:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure they're even a major voice in that, considered the breadth of the problem and the many national-level groups that are involved in the discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable group and references mention group only in passing. Article created as part of a massive POV push by a single-purpose account.--MONGO 21:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per MONGO. WP is not the place to advocate for pedophiles.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - per DGG's reply above. Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.