Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspies For Freedom (5th 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Aspies For Freedom
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is only one reliable source covering this organization in-depth. Ylevental (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Apparently this is the 5th nomination. The article doesn't seem to have improved... yes, there are some cites to scholarly journals but as far as I can tell, none of these actually reference the organization described in the article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  18:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Did the editors above look at the sources? The article is well cited. Aspies For Freedom was profiled by the BBC and a quick Google search even shows multiple sources of information. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a few of the sources I found, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draft and userfy at best for now unless better coverage can also be added soon because this would be acceptable but further coverage would be beneficial. SwisterTwister   talk  07:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep -- The current sources are a little thin (a lot of brief mentions), but IMHO they're enough. Also, some of them require a subscription to view, so I couldn't see those. I wonder how many of the !voters took those into consideration. ♫ ekips39 (talk) ❀ 03:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources aren't amazing but notability certainly looks to be there. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 'Keep - mainly following what User:Megalibrarygirl said. Plus, bad sourcing means you put a bar on top asking for more sources not delete; delete is about notability not the quality of the article as User:Davey2010 notes. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 23:55, 16 March 2016 (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.