Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Save Our Species Alliance


 * 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. Yuser31415 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Save Our Species Alliance

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

I originally was going to list this as a NPOV problem, given that it claims the group is just a nasty bunch of corporate types who want to kill the cute little animals, has been written as an attack piece, lacks citations for its claims and what doesn't explain what the group's aims really were. Unfortunately the group is now defunct, and the group's website is now dead. So given that the group no longer exists it's difficult to establish notability for it, and it makes it almost impossible to describe what the group really wanted, so the article is essentially doomed to being a biased piece contrary to NPOV. In other words, it's an ex-group and of dubious notability, and to make matters worse the existing article is contrary to NPOV and probably can't be fixed as the group has disappeared. Nssdfdsfds 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Failing NPOV is not a reason for deletion and besides, it isn't so bad that some judicious editing won't fix it up. Notability seems reasonable... a significant effort to influence an important political issue of the past several years.  The website may be gone but much of the content can still be retrieved from archive sites like this[].
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:V, as it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial media reports. All those media reports that I've found were highly negative; this article is far more NPOV than any of its sources.  There does seem to be a question about whether to write about this organization in the present or past tense, but that's one for the editorial process.  --Hyperbole 21:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article should be updated with the fact that the group is defunct and probably changed to paste tense etc. though. I find the NPOV to be under control. Tomtefarbror 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Paste tense, eh? So we'll have to glue the article together? Anyway, Keep per all of the above. Veinor (talk to me) 00:04, 13 February 2007 (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.