Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  1 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)

American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property
Inapproprate use of Wikipedia  Ariele 19:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Reference: Inappropriate Uses of Wikipedia
 * Ariele, please identify what part of that policy you believe applies in this instance. Thanks. Ground Zero 11:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's go up one level shall we? Problems that may require deletion.  And more specifically, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Cheers. Ariele 13:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining your reason for nominating this for deletion. As a few editors and I have stated below, we do not believe that this promotes the organization. If you believe it is POV, then by all means, edit it to remove the POV, or at least tag it as being POV. Nominating for deletion is not the appropriate way of dealing with POV issues. If this article is to be deleted because mere mention of the organization and what it stands for makes this a "soapbox", then we would have to look at deleting United States Republican Party, and United States Democratic Party, amongst many others. I don't want to promote this organization that attacks my family (I am legally married under the laws of Canada to my same-sex spouse), but Wikipedia should identify public organizations and what they stand for, even if we disagree with their agendas. Ground Zero 13:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in Problems that may require deletion that applies here. If you believe the article is POV, do what that page suggests and list it at Pages needing attention and/or apply the  or   tags to the article. Or, better yet, edit it yourself to remove/fix what you perceive as POV. I've no idea what that might be, as I believe the article is NPOV, but go for it. I move to delist this nomination, as it's clear that the article will be kept and that the nomination was made under a faulty understanding of NPOV and/or deletion policy. Normally, I wouldn't do this, but this has happened before, I believe it needs to be addressed, and that Ariele needs to review the relevant policies.  A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  15:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. Then the issue you have is with me not so much as to why I chose the "VfD".  Why was this article introduced here in the first place?  If it has such a lasting presence and it's own web site, then why repeat it here?  Hey, Mr./Ms. Android79, are you trying to "VfD" me?  Ariele 16:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing is being repeated – the article should serve as an NPOV description of the organization, its goals, and its activities. That's not something you can get from its website, as anything put out by the group itself would be biased. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It contains information about people. places, and organizations, among other things. That someone chose to add an article about this particular organization should not be a problem, unless it's POV, in which case the problem's solution is clear: edit the article, not delete it. And, no, I'm not trying to "VfD" you, but you clearly have some fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose and/or its policies. (BTW, it's "Mr.") A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  16:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly exists and seems notable. VFD is not the place to list NPOV disputes. POV articles should be improved not deleted, though this seems fairly NPOV even though I do disagree with its fascist aims. Dunc|&#9786; 20:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This doesn't promote the organization -- it reports on its positions and activities in a fairly neutral tone. No reason to delete. Ground Zero 20:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Founded long before the Internet, so it is not a typical right-wing shell organization. — Sesel wa  20:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This isn't advocacy for the group, but a fairly dispassionate description of the group. wahooker
 * Keep. NPOV treatment of a notable and long-standing organization. I didn't recognize the name at first, but it sounded familiar; reading about their opposition to Dogma connected the dots for me. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  21:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable organisation of fairly longstanding. Capitalistroadster 01:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is my vote.  Unless you know for certain that this article was created for informational purposes only.  Ariele 23:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is NPOV and verfiable, then what does it matter what was going on the mind of the person who created it? If it is not NPOV, please tell us so that we can edit it accordingly. And why won't you tell us what about this article is "soapbox" or POV? Please, tell us. Ground Zero 19:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV advertising. JamesBurns 08:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain what about this article is POV? If we knew what is POV, then we could edit it to remove the POV instead of deleting it. VfD is not an appropriate mechanism for addressing POV issues. Ground Zero 19:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, informative NPOV article about a controversial organization. We have articles on the Ku Klux Klan and the Orange Order, so why not this group? --Angr/undefined 09:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable (google test only returns 720 hits, 123 if you search groups ). The KKK and Orange Order are a prominent, well-known groups, this one not so. Axon 09:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added info on their activities that show their "notability" (not that non-notablity is an accepted grounds for deletion). Part of the problem with Google is their unwieldy name, that may not be accurately reflected in media reports. Googling "Tradition, Family and Property" gets you 65,300 hits, which I think should fit within everybody's definition of notable. Ground Zero 19:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The above notes on activities are not related to a groups notability. Your google test is false: those words will no doubt be used together for many other reasons unrelated to the organisation here. Axon 08:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My google test is not false. Of the first 100 links, 98 are related to the ASDTFP or its foreign affiliates. I didn't go further than that. If you want to try to discredit the test, you can take the count further: Perhaps you should have tried it yourself before making that accusation.  Ground Zero 08:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't think you understand how this works. Unless we all go through all 65k hits you claim are references to this organisation then you don't have proof of notability. Axon 09:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Axon, I encourage you to re-think your comments. I do not think that they are reasonable. I think that most people would agree that reviewing 66,000 weblinks is not a productive use of an active Wikipedia editor's time. I will spend that time making new contributions, copyediting, fixing links, and so on, instead of wasting it on a hugely time-comsuming exercise like that. If non-notability were an accepted grounds for deletion (which it is not), and if the Google test were accepted as an fair and accurate test of notability (which it is not), then it might be worth spending time to determine if there were 500 or 1000 (or however many hits were accepted as the threshold) hits linking to this organization. But telling someone that they have to investigate all 66,000 is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, in my opinion. -- at this point, I must stop in order to avoid an allusion to mental illness, which, as a personal attack, would violate Wikipedia etiquette. In order to meet the 1,000 threshold, only 1.5% of the hits would have to be for this organization. I took a sample in which 98% of the hits were for this organization. I think that should be sufficient evidence. What we have here is a verifiable, NPOV article about a real organization with numerous members. We do not have accepted grounds for deletion, your unreasonable demands for excessive verification notwithstanding. Ground Zero 28 June 2005 13:20 (UTC)
 * Without wanting to get into a lengthy debate about wikipedia policy, notability is relevant for deciding what is and isn't simple promotion/advertising and for determining what is and isn't encylopaedic, and the google test, whilst not definitive, is a good rule of thumb for determining notability. With this in mind, I stand by my vote and my remarks here. No ammount of hand-waving, childish references to my mental state or flawed intepretations of google results will change my mind. Others are free to interpret my remarks and vote as the feel. Axon 28 June 2005 13:45 (UTC)
 * I will withdraw my inappropriate and unnecessary remark. I still would like to know why you really think it is a good use of a Wikipedia editor's time to investigate 66,000 links on a google test. More importantly, if you're going to live by the sword, you also have to die by the sword. If you accept the Google test as a "good rule of thumb", then I think you have to change your vote. I have shown a Google test that, if only 1.5% of the reuslts are links to this organization, "proves notability". I have also undertaken a large sample that shows that 98% of those sampled did. I don't think that you can rejecting this analysis on the basis that I did not invest several days in checking every link. Ground Zero 28 June 2005 17:32 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that people would more often refer to this group by an abbreviation or acronym instead of always typing "American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property"? — Sesel wa  19:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, in a respectable news report I would expect the full name of an organisation to be used at least once. If they are known by a more well known alias the page should be merged there, otherwise my vote remains Delete. 08:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and vandalize profusely
 * Keep Disgusting, offensive, and completely misguided, but Google hits of 720 is plenty for an organization probably containing a large number of people who likely don't even know how to turn a computer on. Personally, I'd rather delete the organization, but it exists.   &#08492; astique &#09660; talk 19:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I dont think you can make a comparison between the KKK and this group.. The KKK has been historically established in the South for decades, this group originally from Brazil has only been around for a few years. Not notable. Leanne 02:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's been around since 1973, which I believe counts as "decades." That's in the first sentence of the article. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  02:44, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete reads like a promo. 678 Google hits including some from their own website.. for a group that's been around since 1973, that's not very notable. Megan1967 04:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Megan, if you think that the article reads like a promo, please state how, or edit the article yourself. Several people here have made that broad claim, but no-one has provided any specific reference to any part of the article that is POV. If someone were to do so, we could arress the issue properly. It really sounds like some people want to delete the article because this is a heinous organization, rater than because there are problems with the article. And please check this search:, which produces 66,800 hits. Ground Zero 08:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't promote organization. Organization is clearly old and large. I find the VfD absurd 70.105.188.134
 * Keep, not a promo. We have no hope of building NPOV if things like this are deleted. Kappa 22:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep not a proper VfD candidate, it is a notable organization with POV removed.--Hooperbloob 28 June 2005 12:29 (UTC)
 * Keep I kept expecting it to be really POV, but it's not. If it were, it would just deserve the NPOV tag, not a VfD. I am guessing that I don't share politics with this organization. To those who invoked the KKK, remembered Godwin's Law and just go ahead and invoke the Nazi Party. --Habap 30 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)
 * Keep Personal feelings toward the orgainzation are irrelevant--Luspari 30 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.