Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athletes Against Autism (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 delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 03:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Athletes Against Autism
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:ADVOCACY for an unremarkable charity. Significant RS coverage not found; just passing mentions of athletes supporting it. Subject is not mentioned in Autism Speaks, so it's not a suitable redirect target. The first AfD closed as no consensus in 2006. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete lack of sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * delere for lacking indepth sources. LibStar (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * delete - No authoritative references support notability. External references listed: 1 - hijacked by Chinese retail website, 2 - dead link, 3 - 403 error, 4 - no mention of subject, 5 - short reference, possibly a press release, 6 - archived press release, 7 - essentially the same press release, also archived, 8 - DNS error. --Rpclod (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not nearly enough coverage or other secondary sources to establish notability. ThePortaller (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per many perivous editors words, fails to meet WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm inclined to set the bar pretty low for a charity, as such topics are not necessarily the most likely in the world to gain extensive coverage until they meet a certain threshold of cultural currency. However, in this instance we do not have so much as a single source (let alone an independent RS) that provides even incidental coverage of the topic.  Indeed, not even a single flawed, non-RS source is even used in the article at present to even attempt to pass for sourcing, and the entire content of that article is a bare bones description of the charity's purpose and a list of athletes affiliated with it, all in less than encyclopedic tone. Simply does not pass GNG at present.  S n o w  let's rap 12:47, 15 July 2017 (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.