Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents Action League


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 00:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Parents Action League

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This organization fails GNG, as it is unheard-of outside the Minnesota Twin Cities area. Article is here purely as a coatrack to cover it's SPLC "hate group" listing.  Belch fire - TALK 03:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Oh, so Mother Jones is now based in the Twin Cities? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And, no, that's not the only national-level mention. In light of this evidence, I suggest that Belchfire withdraw this AfD. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess the subject of the article suddenly became non-notable when a couple of editors significantly expanded the article a few hours ago. Per the GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list"
 * Keep - Full Disclosure: I am a major editor of the article.
 * Sources include the (Minneapolis) Star Tribune, Mother Jones, CNN, MinnesotaIndependent.com, Twin Cities Daily Planet and St. Paul Pioneer Press, not to mention blogs and primary sources. In it's short two month life, the article has been tended to by 15 editors. I have to wonder what the real motivation is for this nomination, given the millions of articles on Wikipedia, and so many of them begging to be AfD'd. I'm sure a quick perusal of the talk page and history will reveal some insights. – MrX 03:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the coverage not local to the Twin Cities is generated by the SPLC listing, without which we have an organization of roughly the same prominence as a local PTA. It's already been established that a SPLC listing doesn't confer notability by itself.  Thanks for proving my point about the COATRACK, btw.   Belch fire - TALK  04:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the US Justice Department and the US Department of Education might disagree with your assessment, as would CNN. – MrX 04:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You acknowledge that much national level coverage has been generated through the SPLC. That is, you appear to confirm the notability of the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to Anoka-Hennepin Bullying or similar title. Classic coatrack, but still notable.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also wouldn't object to a move so that the article focused on oppression of LGBT children in Anoka-Hennepin, which seems to be the focus of coverage, rather than the specific anti-gay organization. Retain, however, the information that's currently in the article, including the hate group information. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources shown above. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename & improve; there appears to have been several organizations in the past (books) that have had the name "Parents Action League". That being said, the subject of this article appears to have received significant coverage per WP:GNG, even if it is primarily in local sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean disambiguate? Are there other notable PAL groups that Wikipedia covers in any way? Insomesia (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes; and I am unsure. I have not checked if other groups that have used the name have the potential to be notable (not saying that they are or are not).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There only seems to be this group represented on Wikipedia at present. Maybe wait until there is a conflict with another notable PAL? Insomesia (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. A local push group that ended up on the wrong side of history on a case that made it to the national courts, got national news coverage and earned them a spotlight as a designated hate group from the Southern Poverty Law Center. This is the latest front in an effort to suppress that hate group designations from extremist groups who may now be embarrassed that the light of day is shining on their work. There is roughly 12-18 notable anti-gay hate groups and these same battles have been felt on each of them. Eventually they will all be seen for their efforts, delivered in a NPOV way, this is what Wikipedia does better than most. Insomesia (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per significant coverage generated in response to the SPLC coverage as highlighted by Belch. Also the sources highlighted above by Still. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This group has received national news coverage and easily meets the notability requirements for its own article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment I would like to point out that at the moment, the majority of the article is not focused on the PAL. This might be a good place to fork most of the content to a new article about the bullying, and keep only the relevant PAL info here (which of course would include the SPLC tag). little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We certainly couldn't have an article on the bullying and anti-gay policies without also talking about the group and its hate group listing. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article should be narrowly focused to the group, and not the larger issues relating to that group, and it is good that the "hate group" designation is attributed as the designation of the SPLC have been called into question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The group formed for a specific purpose, a bit silly to neglect explaining what that is or only vague insinuating why the group operates and what it does. And, this is a routine clean-up issue. Insomesia (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Certainly passes notability guidelines, and no other coherent reason for deletion has been advanced. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly the subject of significant coverage in multiple independently published sources (Pioneer Press, TCDaily Planet, SPLC, etc.) The piece currently deals very little with the structure and history of the organization as opposed to the controversies relating to them, but this is ultimately an editing matter. Clears GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, good deal of secnodary source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Only keep it if the coats are taken off the rack. Otherwise, put it out of its misery.  Most likely, based on that, I'm leaning toward Delete.  -- No  unique  names  04:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Move, per the initial comments of little green rosetta and Roscelese, above. The notability here is the bullying and the suicides, not the small local group of nobody-ever-heard-ofs. Though they certainly need to be mentioned as a contributing factor, the emphasis should be on the events. (The school district itself also has an article, but I think the incidents have achieved enough notability on their own to merit a separate article, with the mention in the district's article reduced to a summary.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I had thought that at one point myself but this group has been the subject of numerous articles tied to their activism, and of course the hate group designation. The issue that remains is a clean-up one to describe the policy debate with due weight - which I think we're close on - and allow the reader to decide what to think for themselves. There is also some evidence that this group operated under a different name before coalescing under this title, but I need to confirm a few things before adding that in. Presently I think we have enough on this group to warrant a standalone article. Insomesia (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)  06:35, 13 September 2012 (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.