Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspies For Freedom (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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 00:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Aspies For Freedom


Kept in June, Articles for deletion/Aspies For Freedom, for reasons not unconnected with the nominator's admitted dislike of the person who runs this group. My major problem here is that I find very little hard evidence of either significance or independent coverage. A Google search which excludes Wikipedia, forums and blogspot returns 145 unique hits, and Google News finds no hits. There is some attempt at halo-effect from protests by people who were then members, and letters of support, but honestly that does not amount to reliable sources regarding the organisation. At best it might deserve a paragraph in an article on the anti-cure movement. My biggest concern here is that I am unable to verify, from the sources, either the claimed significance of the group, or the neutrality of the article. Any gaming group that scored this low on the Google-O-Meter would be nuked from space without a moment's compunction, but this is not a gaming group. It is, however, a minority activist group which is skilled at self-promotion. Guy 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom scope_creep 18:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep AFF has been covered in the mainstream media many times and we are one of the few active autism rights organisations around - the movement is small but most certainly notable, as are the main groups User:GarethNelson
 * Keep. It's more than a community, it's a community seeking - and getting - media attention. The getting media attention makes it notable. There is More to Life than Google. Gerrit CUTEDH 20:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Indeed AFF is getting media attention, I second User:GarethNelson's reason for keeping this article, also I believe that there is plenty of evidence to suggest the media attention that AFF gets. Pika Pikachu2005 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete How does any fancruft get deleted when the fans vote to Keep? CalG 01:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. For this article to be kept, it is in serious need of independent coverage per nom.  Clearly several editors involved with the topic strongly believe there is such coverage.  Problem is the article does not reflect that at all:  Many links in the article (that aren't from the group's own page) simply go to content promoting the same positions on issues.  If you dig around on a couple of the linked pages you can find links to the organization's main page, but not much if any discussion of them near their home page (have not looked exhaustively).  The Times (UK) link has a fleeting reference to the group and their work (although it could be read to say they would be covering the group more in the future; if they did, that coverage would be handy); the Times (NY) link talks about issues the group are interested in but does not mention them.  So much for notable sources.  (One other link was subscription only).  If somebody got on the ball, I suspect this article could be brought up to clear keep status quite easily.  But right now it's a clear delete.  Baccyak4H 17:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep AFF is a pillar in the Aspie community. David McNamara 11:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article does not document the extreme inflexibility of AFF leaders towards ideas which conflict with theirs.  An attitude which has brought them into conflict with other pillars of the autistic spectrum community, and which has caused them to misrepresent or plain old banish less visible members.  User:CrazyEddy Wed Nov 15 06:31:49 EST 2006


 * 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.