Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Animal Rights Coalition


 * 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. And cleanup. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Southern Animal Rights Coalition

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable group, that fails WP:ORG that appear to be using Wikipedia as a advertising/soapbox. Numerous references are attached to the article, the majority of which do not qualify as independent. Those that are reliable and independent, such as the BBC and The Times, make no mention of ths coalition. Searching returns 160 unique GHits, all of which fail the independent and reliable criteria required to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article's contents communicate the advocacy and positions of the group, but I'm not seeing any independent sources. As Wikipedia is not a web-host, I would think this information would be better left on the group's own website. Are there any independent sources with coverage of the group that we can base a trimmed article on? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not that I've been able to find. TBH, I think the article sums up the problem. All of 'their' campaigns, once you read the article, are actually being carried organisation x, y or z rather than SARC. The coalition is a banding of like minded souls with a common cause, but not a organisation generating coverage of its own. Nuttah (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but fundamentally rewrite. I agree that this is a shameless soapbox article, the vast majority of references appear to be claims on the groups' own websites being passed off as fact, and any group that sympathetic to the Animal Liberation Front surely has received sufficient criticism for this to warrant a significant mention in the article. The only thing that saves this article is that amongst the gazillions of non-references there is the occasional reference to an actual news story, such as the BBC or The Times. Therefore, some sort of article can stay around those few stories, but any events not covered in reliable third-party sources have to go. If no-one's prepared to clean up the article, I'd reduce it to a stub if needed. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but tag for proper citations of independent reliable sources. I say this with regret, as I am fundamentally opposed to campaigns of this kind.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2009 (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.