Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straight, Incorporated


 * 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.  Daniel Bryant  08:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Straight, Incorporated

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has some severe WP:BLP problems - some very serious accusations and allegations are made with some very flimsy sourcing - said sourcing being self-published or of dubious reliability.RJASE1 Talk  00:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While please by all means prove it. Please provide some information to prove otherwise. Here's plenty of proof for you backing what is stated in the article and then some. What proof have you given that the allegations are false other then your opinion.

*Speedy delete and template attached. The sources support a critical article but do not support some of the important statements in the article. There is no balancing text or attempt to obtain a NPOV. As it stands it has to be considered an attack article. Once deleted a new article, more closely tailored to those sources considered reliable, could be written. Bridgeplayer 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maia Szalavitz article in Reason Magazine from January
 * Information and a personal story about the Straight experience
 * The Rick Ross Institute on Straight Inc.
 * Surviving Straight, Inc. In their Own Words
 * Report Fox news did on Straight, the Sembers and more
 * Straight Court Cases — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webdiva (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, I think the only alternative would be stubbing the article and clearing the history. RJASE1 Talk  03:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, conditionally: Folks, take a look at the edit history of the article. You'll see that at various points this actually had a balanced POV that took into account the various controversies about this place without doing an obvious hatchet job.  This wasn't designed as an attack article; it's been vandalized to become one.  That isn't necessarily the province of AfD to solve unless the problem's endemic and unfixable.    RGTraynor  03:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * keep I have just this minute removed a totally unwarranted speedy tag. The circumstances allerged in the articles are supported by the sources. DGG 05:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but much better sources, like those listed here (Fox News rather than Cannibis Culture), need to be added. I would try a NPOV rewrite but I'm too pissed off. Thousand points of light my ass!
 * Keep Serious charges to be sure but that alone does not indicate a delete. Keep it and keep it well sourced. JB Evans  11:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as it gets some better sources and a little cleaning it's fine, definitely notable.  Gan  fon  15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - listed on the BLP noticeboard here. I agree that the organization is notable and that the WP:BLP concerns can be handled in a method other than deletion. RJASE1 Talk  16:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep - I have cleaned the article up removing unsupported accusations (just because accusations are fringe sourced doesn't mean that they are accurate or that we should record them). The article can be re-expanded from the Fox source. Bridgeplayer 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fox source now included and expansion started. Bridgeplayer 17:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep and add better/additional sources. --Czj 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * excellent - now please do so. Bridgeplayer 21:21, 8 April 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.