Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist Community of Austin


 * 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. To avoid biting the main author, I am userfying to User:Therealgordon/sandbox. lifebaka++ 01:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Atheist Community of Austin

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable organization. All references are either self-references or to non-reliable sources (such as a wiki). This article was created in November of 2007, speedy deleted for lack of notability, and almost immediately recreated. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  02:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC) This is not a non-notable organisation, however I haven't had a chance to fill the article out with respectable secondary sources yet so it may not appear particularly notable from it's current content.
 * Delete as the nom makes strong points. The article's sources are questionable and it notability is non-existent.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Please don't delete this article (I was awake until four this morning learning how to build it and the thought of having to get it back to this point again is terrifying.)

The fact is that it's an extremely notable organisation as it's the only one of it's type in the United States and a totally unique educational resource for the public, resulting in regular discussion regarding the organisation - particularly in online-media.

I would also like to write a full article about the television show that this non-notable organisation have produced (more than five-hundred episodes of) over more than a decade. This organisation is of enormous interest to a huge and global audience, as almost all of their productions are available to the online community. If this organisation isn't a notable example of it's type, considering that it's alone in it's approach and criticised constantly, I'd struggle to direct you to one with any greater notoriety.

Since discovering the organisation online around six months ago I've personally followed it very closely. I'm in Tasmania at the moment and will be leaving for Brisbane for at least a week in about three hours due to a family crisis. I sincerely intended to explain why this organisation's existence is so outstanding and I will try to develop the articles whenever I'm able to, particularly with regard to the point that the sources almost exclusively refer to the community's official website.

With regard to the statement that "All references are either self-references or to non-reliable sources (such as a wiki).", you may not have considered that the reference in question was not made to any content at all within the Iron Chariots wiki, but instead to the wiki itself and the nature of it's association with the Atheist Community of Austin.

Little Red Riding Hood I do not know who recreated the article after you deleted it initially. I just decided it was insubstantial last night and needed development, so I adopted it. Therealgordon (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm going to say keep on this one under the "be nice to the newbies" clause and give them time to re-develop/re-design/re-whatever it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion/Comment Perhaps this artice can be moved to the current author's sandbox so he may continue working and developing it, asking advice and input from other editors to make it encyclopedic and properly sourced before returning it to the main pages? This way it has less chance to be deleted before coming of age. And yes, I still think the current version is not suitable... but having it in his sandbox will take off the pressure of time that is brought to bear by an AfD... and with the author's family crisis in Brisbane, he may not be able to address any concerns in a timely manner. In being kind to newbies, this gives him that time.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nom and Schmidt. Doesn't pass WP:ORG, no notability at all, poorly sourced. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article here, In the NYT (the article is largely about their actions and furor they caused) this seems related, but I can't get the text. Does anyone actually search for stuff or just come here and !vote? The article was written by a newbee, and at the least we should try to help out rather than bite them.  One could reasonably argue that the sources I've provided don't meet WP:N, but to not help out with a simple news search and instead just !vote to delete?  Very bitey. Hobit (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for assuming good faith. I did search, and I went to google news and looked for all dates, and found nothing other than lists of what events they were sponsoring, nothing that indicated the notability of the organization.  I also searched on Google for websites, and Although there were quite a few hits, I searched through about fifty pages without finding anything that provided a reliable source.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article definitely needs improvement, but the organization certainly isn't non-notable. Sure the name may say "Austin", but this organization is known all around the world. The podcast for the television show probably reaches an audience that is an order of mangitude (or two) above what the actual broadcast reaches.Shnakepup (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure what "be nice to newbies" has to do with an entry that has been here for 11 months.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  17:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response the page User talk:Therealgordon was initialized yesterday.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes... but the user has been editing since November 2007.... though mot much. I will still stand my suggestion (above) to have this article copied to the user's sandbox. It is rare that an article springs perfect to Wiki pages... and yes, this article has existed since 2007... but with User:Therealgordon willing to make it better, what safer place than his sandbox?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment weeelllll because articles in user sandboxes tend to not get as much collaboration--only the user tends to edit. And unless there is some harm with leaving the page where it is (copyvio, bioliving, etc) then I'd rather have it where it is, put a tag on it that it needs improvement so readers will know it is a work in process, and have at it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With respects, an article in a sandbox gets as much or as little help as an editor asks for. As it is, the result of his improvements to this current article led to this AfD... and it is unlikely that those feeling a delete as best for Wiki may not agree to just let it sit as he works on it, as even he granted (above) that due to a current family crisis such work won't be immediate. If the article does not survive this Afd, the work he put into it will be lost. In my own WP:AGF that he wishes to improve the article, and only if this AfD results in delete, I ask that the closing Admin put a copy in the user's sandbox, as the user may not be aware of such existing, and it would to improve Wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points, but I still disagree with the concept. Key phrases are sandbox development "gets as much or as little help as an editor asks for" but an open article (my term for non-sandbox-article) potentially gets help regardless of how much an editor asks.  And yes, the culmination of the collaboration to date "led to this AfD" but it has not led to its deletion--at least, not yet.  If the closing admin does land on deleting the article, then YEAH I'd say port it to the sandbox for the user.  But by reading through the discussion, it looks to me more like a "no consensus" than anything else.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a fair enough assessment. I am in full agreement that an open article might be helped from anyone willing to do so, and only wished to address your concern inre a sandbox when I suggested it might be placed in his sandbox if it gets deleted while he is unable to work on it... in my good faith acceptance of the circumstances surrounding his inability to do so for a short time due to family crisis, and my good faith acceptance of his willingness to do so. And if a no-consesus default keeps the article, it will be here for his efforts when he gets back. And I still am one that votes delete... I just wish to be fair to someone so willing to attempt the improvements on this article. Bt heck... it may well be improved by others in his absence... and I would be willing to then rethink my opinion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverified notability, or better Userfy to allow time for sources to be found. Article was created november 2007, plenty of time to learn how to write an article, so condescending to a newbie is not appropriate. non of the involved editor's comments indicate he would show notability (being oustanding is not the same), and circumventing an AfD of a non-notable org by going on holiday should not be made into a precedent. No useful collaboration in nearly a year meakes it unlikely any will happen in the next week while it is off mainspace.Yobmod (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:29, 12 October 2008 (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.