Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors for Autism
- 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actors for Autism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Minor non-profit/charitable organisation. No independent sources, fails notability guidelines. Delete Exxolon (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I searched for reliable sources on this topic and found nothing: just the organization's own web site and press releases. It does not appear to be a notable topic. Eubulides (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Much as I sympathize for the cause, the article doesn't meet our notability requirements. It needs improvement before we can retain it. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. for above reasons. A ntv (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - has anyone tried to fix the formatting and look for cites first? Bearian (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to look for reliable sources, and failed. More recently, someone else added poorly-formatted material sourced by Actors for Autism; this material is not worth reformatting if it's poorly sourced. Eubulides (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah; I did help a bit when the article had just been born ... see the talk page. Like Eubulides I was unable to find any info and so I just spruced up the formatting a bit. But in any case, the article now doesn't look the same as it when I left it yesterday. Soap Talk/Contributions 23:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Improvements don't change the reasons for which I voted for deletion. A ntv (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment http://moreresults.factiva.com/results/index/index.aspx?ref=STER000020060930e29u0000o may have something.
- 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.