Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autism Support Network
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Autism Support Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Organization of questionable notability. I cannot verify the San Francisco Examiner citation and the other cited sources do not seem WP:RS-appropriate — Scientizzle 11:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: fairly clear case here. The organization in question has numerous reliable sources that can be located easily through google news, google scholar, or google books. In addition to that, there is at least one reliable source already incorporated in the article. Notability is easy to establish. Fact checking statements in the article should be easy for editors in the future. Looks like it has potential to be a good article in the long run. i kan reed (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I obviously disagree that notability is "clear". I spent a fair amount of effort trying to find any mention of this organization in the San Francisco Examiner and urge you to try the same [1]. That the reference is only 1 page in the paper, and that the title cited is found only in Wikipedia and its mirrors suggests strongly that if the organization is mentioned at all it is only trivially so, or that the citation itself is critically inaccurate. I also don't think that the other two cited sources, from disabled-world.com (an apparent press release hosted on a website that may not meet WP:RS[2] and bulldogreporter.com, a subscription-required PR site of unknown credibility. In fact, given that the external links (those that aren't broken) all lead to press releases, the article fails WP:ORG for a lack of independent coverage.
As for "google news, google scholar, or google books" citations, everything I've evaluated looks like a press release or a cross-hit with mony of the other similarly-named organizations. If one narrows the search to try to hit only this organization[3][4], there is considerably less apparent coverage.
Perhaps I should have included a lot of this research in the nomination statement, but I did much of this a week ago. I'm open to evaluating better sources that I've not seen, but those found in the article don't meet the notability guidelines, hence the AfD. — Scientizzle 14:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I obviously disagree that notability is "clear". I spent a fair amount of effort trying to find any mention of this organization in the San Francisco Examiner and urge you to try the same [1]. That the reference is only 1 page in the paper, and that the title cited is found only in Wikipedia and its mirrors suggests strongly that if the organization is mentioned at all it is only trivially so, or that the citation itself is critically inaccurate. I also don't think that the other two cited sources, from disabled-world.com (an apparent press release hosted on a website that may not meet WP:RS[2] and bulldogreporter.com, a subscription-required PR site of unknown credibility. In fact, given that the external links (those that aren't broken) all lead to press releases, the article fails WP:ORG for a lack of independent coverage.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is quite clear that a proper interrogation of bald google searches reveals insufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article and this discussion do not contain verifiable references to the sort of coverage required by WP:GNG. Sandstein 06:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.