Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide Awareness Project


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 02:32Z 

Genocide Awareness Project

 * — (View AfD)

Soapboxy article about a mobile temporary display erected on university campuses by people who are apparently unable to distunguish between abortion and genocide. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete This article, right now, does not assert its importance, but I feel that it could possibly be made into something that shows wht it needs an article more. And what's the connection between fetuses and genocide?  Sure they're both disgusting pictures, but I'm not sure how that got dragged into the article.  That seems rather odd to me.  --Sbrools ( talk  .  contribs ) 14:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your question about "connection between fetuses and genocide" is irrelevant (not to say that quite a few Pro-Lifers think there is).`'mikka 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I see nothing wrong with this artical. It contains factual information (which I presume is correct), and adopts a neutral tone. As to the connection between abortion and genocide, it does not present this as fact but merely reports it as an opinion expressed by the organisation in question. 82.10.103.157 14:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. The Center for Bioethical Reform may be notable and deserve its own article (perhaps the author of this article could create it, bearing in mind WP:COI, of course), but, without reliable sources, one of their projects isn't. Tevildo 15:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete simply because the article fails to assert the notability of the subject. Tarinth 17:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per A7, no assertion of notability. Keep. The article's been cleaned up a bit, includes a good bit of balance, and has been sourced to mainstream media outlets.  RGTraynor 19:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. A quick google seach reveals that GAP (not that GAP:-) is discussed on numerous campus newspapers, hence it is not a nonnotable dormitory-wide project. `'mikka 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mikka, you should know better! Speedy keep is not a vaild !vote once deletes have been registered. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A joke, man. `'mikka 18:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - no assertion of notability whatsoever. Moreschi Deletion! 20:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[deleted image, please do not start illustrating afd debates, esp. as illustration is completely irrelevant] &rArr; bsnowball  07:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC) HANGON Obviously the "delete" voters didn't bother to figure out that the project generated a consideable publicity. '''Please postpone your votes for a couple of hours. I am currently working on the article.''' And no I am not a pro-lifer, I am from a different culture. `'mikka 20:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Done for now. I hope plenty (4) of "mainstream" references. If one wants more, Google news archives have MUCH more. `'mikka 22:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: with the lead Google hit on this being from www.abortionno.org and the second lead hit from genocideawarenessproject.blogspot.com, I'm unconvinced on the alleged "consideable [sic] publicity."  Certainly there's a buzz on both sides of the abortion wars blogosphere and on campus bulletin boards, but might we see some citations to reliable mainstream sources?  RGTraynor 20:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Already done: National Post and Vancouver Sun are very mainstream in Canada. And a buzz on a two hundred campus bulletin boards for over 9 years now is hardly to be easily dismissed, especially the buzz goes beyond "campus bulletin board" and into "independent student newspapers". `'mikka 20:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right now I am working on WP:RS and notability issues only. I have no particular desire to write an actual description of the exhibit. I am quite sure someone else will eventally fill this in as well. `'mikka 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Did you really have to nail me down for a typo? Wasn't it much easier to fix a single letter in quotation than to type "[sic]"? Not that I was offended; I've seen worse, but I'd seriously recommed to avoid such an attitude. We didn't even have any heated dispute here with name calling and all. `'mikka 22:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, or maybe move to Center of Bioethical Reform and write an article on the rest of what the organization does. JYolkowski // talk 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would second that. I suspect this org does only this. `'mikka 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Genocide and suggest cleanup of the the content.    Tonytypoon 01:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * haha very funny. `'mikka 01:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * weak delete borderline notability for an offensive publicity stunt.note there are only a couple of newspaper refs. the rest are from anti-abortionist publications. &rArr;  bsnowball  07:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Who told you "only a couple"? Did you read all newspapers in US and Canada for 9 years? Surely I cannot add a nundred refs here. 5 is more than enough. `'mikka 18:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This kind of organization is bound to inspire debate whenever it comes up - but they do receive an impressive amount of traditional media coverage when they appear. BillyBoy 08:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Lacks independent sources, very POV article. Edison 00:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Lacks independent sources? Are you kidding me? Please explain what kind of sourced did I add then? The National Post,  Vancouver Sun, San Francisco Chronicle, The Cincinnati Post? Of course, we all heard that all media in the United States belong to a Jewish Cabal... `'mikka 02:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient notability is asserted, I believe.  The article could use some more refs I think, but it's not too shabby despite, as Guy pointed out, the subject's apparent refusal to consult a dictionary on the meaning of the word "genocide".  Ford MF 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Non-notable.  Madchen Hoch 06:22, 29 December 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.