Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athletes Against Autism


 * 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. This also sounds like a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. Mackensen (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Athletes_Against_Autism


Non-notable organisation afiliated with Cure Autism Now Rdos 19:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Affiliation with a notable group does not make you notable, nor does working for a good cause. -Amarkov blahedits 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do they have against people with autism? Just kidding.  But seriously, no article necessary.  Merge to Cure Autism Now. Wavy G 21:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Wavy G. Rever e ndG 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge necessary info into Cure Autism Now. Also, whoever was responsible for naming this organization really should stay out of future PR work ;)  --The Way 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya, an ambigous name, but no worse than Cops for cancer. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my opinion to Keep per HighInBC. Enough good sources.  However, my previous comment on poor word choice by the organization's founders remains! --The Way 20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Is notable (There are more) and I am sure from all these sources this article can be expanded. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but then delete it because it is offensive to autistics. Or merge it to CAN as have been suggested above. --Rdos 08:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete it because it's "offensive to autistics?" Are you serious? First of all, Wikipedia is not censored.  Second, and more importantly, the group helps raise awareness about autism, it helps autistics. It seems to meet notability requirements, can you give a reason why it doesn't? --The Way 08:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There is an "informal rule", invented by JzG and others, that things that are offensive to some autistic should go. Look here: Articles_for_deletion/Neanderthal_theory_of_autism_3. Not only that, the same admins also forbid me to keep it on my private user-page and blacklisted the url for no other reason than to keep this out of Wikipedia. What CAN is now trying to do is to create a huge set of articles on Wikipedia to push their views, that are largely offensive to most autistics. The article at hand is more or less a stub, with no actual information other than pushing a personal web-site and placing links to it from various autism-articles.--Rdos 20:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ya, Rdos I am not sure you have read the article and checked the citations here, if you have then please explain why this is offensive to anyone? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fighting autism is offensive to most autistics I now, which is several hundreds. Fighting autism is the same thing as fighting us. Would you accept an article about fighting blacks with a prenatal test for Afro-American heritage? This is exactly what Athletes Against Autism is putting their sponsor money into, but not for eradicating blacks but for eradicating autistics. --Rdos 20:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, please, that the goal here is merely to document the subject's existence, not to promote it. Just because the subject may be offensive (I'm still not really sure how this could be considered offensive, but hey, what do I know?) is not a reason to delete the article.  I, for instance, am highly offended by this article: Anti-Saloon League, but there's nothing I can do about that.  We'll just have to suffer in silence, I guess.  Wavy G 21:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. Well, an organization can participate in offensive, and even uncondonable actions, can still merit an encyclopedic article. The nazis are a prime example. The issue at hand here is the notability of the group. If you oppose genetic screening to prevent autistic children from being born that is your opinion, and your welcome to it. But I am afraid it is not a valid reason to delete the article. If you can find reliable sources to critisisms of this group you are welcome to add them to the article, and provide your sources. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are other valid reasons. The article is more or less a stub, and even if it have been here for about half-a-year, it haven't been expanded. There is no comments on the talk-page. I don't see it will ever evolve into something useful. --Rdos 06:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We usually do not delete something just becuase it is small. You may think of adding cleanup tags such as or  to attract other editors. You mentioned there is some critisms of the group, if you can find sources that is a great avenue of expansion. This article has potential. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - The (proposed) notability guidelines for organizations state that "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." The existing guidelines for companies and corporations refers to organizations and includes as notability criteria that "the club, society, or organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the club, society, or organization itself." This is an organization with national scope, with verifiable third-party information, and which has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (per HighinBC's references above). It meets notability guidelines. Eron 18:11, 23 November 2006 (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.