Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian coalition against death penalty


 * 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. Sr13 03:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian coalition against death penalty

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

From the number of maintainance tags and the red text on the top of the page, it is obvious that this isn't an encyclopedia article. Aside from all that, this isn't a notable organisation either. All I could find was a couple of mentions one sentence long during the Shapelle Corby/Bali Nine sagas. Also, the fact that this "article" has remained with a lowercase title for months speaks volumes about what editors are willing to do to fix it - zero. MER-C 11:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - if you click on the link in the red text to go to the "Official Site", the more info link redirects to the WP article. This is in clear violation of WP:NOT and the article should be speedy deleted.   Plm 209 ( talk •  contribs ) 12:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the current version. I have claened it up Taprobanus 14:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Cleanup is no excuse for deletion Taprobanus 12:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I tried to clean it up as best as I can, but looks like there is not enough credible RS sources that will support an entry into wikipedia. I dont think anyone who has voted delete here has any other intenstions other than to follow wikipedia rules, this should now ne considered under WP:SNOWTaprobanus 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete While I agree that you shouldn't be able to kill an article by swarming it with maintenance tags--wow. That is a LOT of maintenance tags. And it's a terrible article that's almost all just about the death penalty instead of the organization, and there's nothing proving the notability of the organization, and the org sure does seem to be using Wikipedia for their official website, and let's just get rid of the thing, without prejudice against a decent article being created in the future to describe the organization only, if it can prove notability. Propaniac 12:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blimey. Seems articleissues just isn't good enough for some people! All the tags are legit, mind. - Zeibura (Talk) 13:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is soapboxing, and vires completely away from the subject. As Propaniac rightly points out, the factual content of this article is all concerned with the death penalty, take all that away and you're left with nothing but the company's mission statement, which is far from neutral and with no assertions to notability. This violates WP:NOT and WP:NOT. - Zeibura (Talk) 13:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up, take a look at it now Taprobanus 13:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's still no assertion of meeting WP:ORG. Propaniac 13:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG read The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.  I think the current version (a stub) meets that asertion Taprobanus 14:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete it is possible that a decent article could be written about this group--however,  this is just an excuse for a long POV essay.DGG (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The new version is an improvement over the previous, but it is still lacking sufficient sources to demonstrate notability per WP:ORG.  Sorry, but showing up in multiple lists of anti-death penalty groups still does not make it notable. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Bduke 01:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google News Archives comes up with three references all of them trivial.
 * Delete Per nom and ors, who have covered all the issues with this article appropriately. Also, the article subject of this AfD debate has been virtually blanked and redirected to Acadp, possibly in an attempt to avoid deletion. An AfD for the redirected article has also been opened, and it exhibits the same issues as being discussed here. Thewinchester (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable community organisation which fails WP:ORG. It should be noted that Australia does not have, and is not likely to reintroduce, the death penalty, so this is essentially an ideological opposition group against the death penalty in other parts of the world. Orderinchaos 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above, not a notable political organisation. Lankiveil 04:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete non notable-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note. It seems that user:Taprobanus chose to disregard the text "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed" (emphasis mine) in the box at the top of the article page about this deletion nomination (at least as I interpret "blanked"). ? — President Lethe 07:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just leave personalities alone and comment on the content, I tried to clean up assuming good faith and in the process found another article much shorter so I directed it there as looks like a better title, there was no attempt to hide, cheat or disregard community consensus. I have changed my mind after few days looking at it. My advice, no  need to get emotional and upset over such trivial details about XFD responsibilities. You’ve made your point very well and just move on, and the community most of the time comes to the right conclusion if not on the first attempt at least on the nth  attempt :))Taprobanus 17:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable organization. --Bryson 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both this and Acadp as well. Bearian 00:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE - This is a human rights organization entitled to the democratic right of freedom of speech. The organization should not be deleted to suit the opinions of pro-death penalty individuals. If ACADP is deleted, then delete all other human rights organizations including Amnesty International. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.105.1 (talk • contribs)
 * Freedom of speech is about the right of individuals and private organizations to speak without government interference; freedom of speech is also about the right of private organizations, such as Wikipedia, to decide what speech they will and won't make; it is not about the right of one private entity (such as you) to dictate what information another private entity (such as Wikipedia) must or mustn't transmit. — President Lethe 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Assume good faith. Those who support deleting this article are not "pro-death penalty individuals". They merely do not think that the organisation is notable, while Amnesty International clearly is. It is nothing to do with freedom of speech. --Bduke 05:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Those advocating deletion may be for or against the death penalty; your "are not" seems prejudicial, although it may have been stated in good faith. But the death-penalty stances of voters on this nomination are irrelevant, while, as you rightly point out, notability of the organization is relevant, as is the quality of the article. — President Lethe 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My intention was to indicate that the participants are not participating in this debate as "pro-death penalty individuals" (or as "anti-death penalty individuals") and the anon editor had no evidence that the participants were biased. --Bduke 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. So anyone who hates the death penalty (as I do) should be trying to delete the Wikipedia articles about pro-death penalty groups on Wikipedia? Propaniac 13:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No; hatred is not the appropriate motive for deciding what to include in, or exclude from, Wikipedia. — President Lethe 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was purely joking (well, 50% joking and 50% curious about whether the editor I responded to would reply in the affirmative). Propaniac 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. We are now arguing about the deletion nomination of an article that, for more than 50 hours and in reaction to this deletion nomination, has read, in a style unbefitting Wikipedia, "1. REDIRECT Acadp"—in its entirety. Such articles do not belong at Wikipedia. Editors who appear to be editing the article in an effort to keep it, and/or a very similar article, at Wikipedia have consistently demonstrated a misunderstanding of what type of information is to be included at Wikipedia and how it is to be presented, despite their direction, by other editors, to sources that should help them improve that understanding. It may be difficult to sympathize with a desire for information to remain at Wikipedia when those advocating its retention seem to show so little regard for the spirit of the project. Even with the removal of article text that skirted so many Wikipedia guidelines and policies, we have been left with (1) an article about an organization that seems not to meet the notability requirements and (2) the unusually presented redirection link mentioned at the beginning of this comment. — President Lethe 16:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is also a process not just a stale set of policies. People will get it wrong and they will eventually get it right but by then there will be more people who are newbie’s who will muddy the waters because of their lack of understanding of policies. This is will go on all the time in an open source environment. As part of the solution to deal with it we have XFD’s. Looks like just one person wants to keep it now, do we need all this energy wasted talking about an article about such as non notable organization any more attributing intents and intentions on behalf of editors unless such arguments are meant for a different audience? The basic question still is, does the article belong in wikipedia, clearly NO. Thanks Taprobanus 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * DO NOT Delete There have been many allegations made here for deletion, none of which have any foundation whatsoever. ACADP is a very noted human rights organization, both in Australia and overseas. There have been many media articles over the years quoting ACADP, which can be found on internet search engines. Plus many links to other international human rights organizations including Amnesty International. In addition, the official site does not mention Wikepedia at all. The contents is no different to other human rights organizations in Wikipedia. ACADP has a right to free speech in their own words, not those of others who are obviously so self righteous and judgemental. What's the problem? Clean up does not mean deletion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.105.1 (talk • contribs) 20:04, July 17, 2007


 * 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.