Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advocates for Children in Therapy

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocates for Children in Therapy

Speaking for the organization which is the subject of this article:

1. The article was created by an anonymous opponent of the subject organization, and is false in most respects.
2. The article is possibly defamatory, e.g., the present section on "Acceptance by Mental Health Profession".
3. The article, and its associated talk page, will likely be the target of numerous anonymous edits that can be anticipated to be false and defamatory.
4. The subject organization does not desire to spend resources defending its reputation from "merciless editing" on Wikipedia, especially by correcting numerous falsehoods, defamations, and violations of Wikipedia policy which Administrators let stand.
5. Corrective edits by Wiki editors have been reverted and labelled "vandalism" by the creator of the article.
6. The article will likely become the object of edit wars, revert wars, or "fixated" editing on the part of supporters trying to defend the organization, which would lead to the editors being blocked, leaving the subject organization with no means of defense, and damaging the reputation and position of the editors.
7. The subject organization reserves the right to take any legal action that is appropriate if the page is allowed to continue.
8. The article was not created in good faith. The anonymous creator of the article has been a participant in many talk page discussions wherein he has called a "fringe" organization. A "fringe" group by definition does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the main namespace, so creating it was not an act of good faith.
9. The article is not likely to contribute anything to making Wikipedia "a great encyclopedia" and more likely would be disruptive to Wikipedia and its administrators. Larry Sarner 17:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- vote undecided at moment: if you think that the current article is biased, I'd say, rather than deletion, rewrite it unless it's thoroughly unsalvageable. Also put a {{NPOV}} tag on it. --Nlu (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• LeaveThe article does need more material, but it has a place in an encyclopedia:

1. It is referenced in other articles and spaces in Wikipedia. Readers may have an interest in reading about the group and should have a convenient way to get information.
2. Many other advocacy groups and organizations have Wikipedia articles.
3. Controversial topics are excellent subjects for encyclopedia articles.

Regarding the objections raised by one of the group's leaders, I would make the following comments:

1. Allegedly false comments can be disputed on the talk page and, if there is not support, deleted.
2. Controversial topics go garner opposiing views. The Wikipedia consensus building process can manage that. If there can be articles about such "hot" topics as Nazi Germany, Abortion, etc. then certainly Wikipedia can contain and manage this.
3. Fringe groups are certainly do have pages. See, for example Nazi-Skinheads.

While I can appreciate Mr. Larry Sarner's concerns, I don't believe those concerns should lead to the supression of information that may be of value to Wikipedia users. DPeterson 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - if I were pressed at the moment, I'd say "weak delete" based on non-notability (though some research on the subject might change my mind). However, I'm with Nlu on this; there are other ways to resolve POV issues without having an article deleted. Please see if any resolution can be met by discussing these issues on the article's Talk page. -- H·G (^words/_works) 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep Article and Add to it' -- This is a subject worthy of an article. The group is cited in several Wikipedia articles and is linked to a notable and sad story. I come to Wikipedia to get information (and occassionally to edit pages). Having access to information, even if difficult and conflicted, is important. I am sure that the article can stand to have several divergent points of view and thus end up presenting a balanced, complete, and reasonable presentation of facts. I'd like to see it stay. SamDavidson 20:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Ya know, this article was created today, and the creator was immediately set upon by the nominator with these concerns. Can we give the article a chance here? It's still being written. (See my talk page for some of the exchange...) Mangojuice^talk 01:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• 'KEEP' This article has information that Wikipedia users may want. Since the group is mentioned on other pages, a page on this topic is warranted. The objection of the group's owner(s) is not relevant, nor are those arguments relevant. The free flow of information requires that topics be covered, even if disputes emerge. RalphLender 17:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep at least for now - Given what I have seen of this nomination, it was made in haste and not completely in good faith. I also completely agree with Mangojuice's comment: Let's give this article a chance. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Thadman (talk • contribs) . (Blar, I can't believe I forgot to sign :-P :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 01:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

• Keep The article is relevant. The group has published a book and several articles to advance its cause. It attempts to influence legislatures, legislators, and various professional organizations. As such it is a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article. MarkWood 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Even though it appears non-notable, we need to give articles some chance to develop unless they are blatant nonsense. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The fate of the attempts to edit (correct and improve) the article while it has been pending has borne out the nominator's initial concerns about the article. It is not even possible to call for the verification of possible misstatements of fact (reverts immediately ensue when attempted). No secondary sources are cited about the subject organization (just its own website). If the article is kept, is it possible to keep it on a "probationary" basis so that if the article fails to develop in a reliable way, it can be again nominated for deletion without the nominator being accused of vandalism or some breach of good faith? I would invite all uninvolved commentators here to please visit the article from time to time to see what is happening. Larry Sarner 23:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No article ever has such a sacred status that it can't be nominated for deletion if there are good reasons for it. In this case, it seems the article will be kept primarily because it should be allowed to develop. In my experience, after about two months of relative inactivity, claims that the article "could improve" wouldn't be taken so seriously. Mangojuice^talk 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Further query: Would "inactivity" be the only standard? For instance, would it be a reasonable basis for nominating it for deletion if the article failed to improve beyond being an original essay by the subject's critics, as it is now? I can foresee that there might be plenty of "activity", but it is all just making the article more and more of an original essay, with a major part of that activity being nothing more than reverting (or defending) changes concerning lack of verifiability. If that indeed happens, and such is actually a basis for deletion, how should one judge the situation reasonably to bring the article's back here? Larry Sarner 17:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Please, let's not get ahead of ourselves. While it is clear you would prefer the article be deleted, it seems a number of editors want to see it stay. Many articles, once in a relatively "set state" (listing all the relevant information) have not further additions or edits. I can understand your frustration in wanting this article deleted and that not occuring, but let's not try to get agreement on how it will be deleted if this or that occurs. The article has value.RalphLender 18:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• 'Keep the article' The article, while controversial, is growing and developing well. The participation of those with a NPOV has helped it improve. The topic of the article is worthy of an article. The group is involved in advocacy, influencing legislation, and was involved in the Candance Newmaker story. SamDavidson 14:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you mean Candace Newmaker. RalphLender 18:34, 27 July 2006 (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.