Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 14:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
Verbatim copy of mission statement, likely copyvio. The aim of this organization is laudable, but is it actually active? Radiant! 15:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Radiant, what's with all these pages you're adding to VFD? A simple click on the link provided on the page would have led you to their web site and a Google check would have shown 107,000 hits. Keep, or list as CV . DialUp 17:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I was of the opinion that, regardless of whether there should be an article about the NCMEC, it should certainly not be this article. Writing a decent article on them would, I think, have to start by deleting the entire current article. Since this is a lot worse than cleanup, I'd nominated it for VfD. I do usually google-test, but not if I believe that a blank page would be better than the current one. IMHO, of course. Radiant! 18:45, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * The main reason for using WP:CV for copy vios is that it creates a temp page for anyone wanting to start a clean copy of the article (assuming it's a worthwhile subject). It's a lot harder to attempt to save edits and history if a page fixed on VFD must later be deleted because the origial edit was a CV. It'll eventually be deleted anyway if no one takes an interest fixing it. Sorry for the sharp words. DialUp 19:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However I have been unable to verify that it is in fact copyvio. Radiant! 21:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a straight copy & paste from . NCMEC appears to be a private organization chartered under a congressional act. It's possible that it might not be copyrightable as a work of the U.S. government, but I doubt it. (see their Reprint Policy for NCMEC Publications). There seems to some confusion here as to what this organization is. As best I can tell, it's federally funded to carry out public policy and doesn't appear to be religious&mdash;its board members belong to many well-known public companies plus governmental and private secular organizations. DialUp 22:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep unless copyvio, of course. Probably does, in fact, need some cleanup tags, which I will go ahead and add. ;) HyperZonktalk 20:13, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The mere fact that this organization considers sex with children, no matter how voluntary, to be abuse is POV. Jesse's Girl 20:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Only 24 minutes after your first edit, you were already voting in Votes for deletion, and you found the User:Anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula page very quickly too. Just saying. -- Curps 22:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I presume that Curps is referring to someone other than me, since these statements would be untrue in my regard. You can check out my contribution list to verify (when I wrote this, 16:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC), I had over 100 entries, so you'll have to look at more than just the first page). I know that Curps isn't attacking me, just wanted to disambiguate for others. HyperZonktalk 16:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, naturally, I was referring to the original post by Jesse's Girl. To clarify this, I'm moving my original comment up (along with these followups). -- Curps 05:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Certainly, however the POV of an organization is no reason to delete it. Otherwise we'd have to delete the article on every single political party and religion, just for starters. EggplantWizard's suggestion below would be one way to deal with any problems you have with the POV, particularly if you feel that it is not widely known (that is, it probably isn't necessary to note that a given political party is biased towards its own views, but many may not know that a given anti-drug abuse program is affiliated with a controversial religious group). HyperZonktalk 20:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (qualified) While offensive conceptually to many, Jesse Girl's opinion is valid (there are many cultural differences with regard to the age of consent)- but it's no reason to remove the article in its entirety - It should merely be noted in the article's body as a known bias held by the organization. EggplantWizard 20:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Your first edit was today, and it was an edit to a Vote for deletion (not this one). -- Curps 23:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, list as copyvio if it is such. --Carnildo 21:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and list as copyvio. I've heard of this organization on the national news more than once. I bet there's a very encyclopedic article to be made here. --InShaneee 21:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Mark as copyvio. Neutralitytalk 22:36, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please follow proper copyright procedures. RickK 23:32, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, copyright violation. Megan1967 23:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Notable organization. Keep if the copyvio is replaced with actual content.  -Sean Curtin 01:14, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A copyvio is not grounds for deletion. A simple rewrite is all that's needed. (Also, I don't believe mission statements of non-profits can be copyrighted but I might be wrong. 23skidoo 05:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If copyright problems are fixed of course. Notable child protection organisation. Capitalistroadster 10:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 11:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.