Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acadp

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. Sr13 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acadp

Procedural nomination, as directly related to the AfD for Australian coalition against death penalty and not included within that AfD nom.

• DO NOT Delete There have been many allegations made here for deletion, none of which have any foundation whatsoever. ACADP is a very noted human rights organization in Australia and overseas. There have been many media articles over the years quoting ACADP, which can be found on internet search engines. Plus many links to other international human rights organizations including Amnesty International. In addition, the official site does not mention Wikepedia at all. The contents is no different to other human rights organizations in Wikipedia. ACADP has a right to free speech in their own words, not those of others who are obviously so self righteous and judgemental. What's the problem? Clean up does not mean deletion!

• DO NOT Delete This is a Human Rights organization entitled to the democratic freedom of speech. The organization should not be deleted to suit the opinions of pro-death penalty individuals.

Freedom of speech is about the right of individuals and private organizations to speak without government interference; freedom of speech is also about the right of private organizations, such as Wikipedia, to decide what speech they will and won't make; it is not about the right of one private entity (such as an editor of Wikipedia) to dictate what information another private entity (such as Wikipedia) must or mustn't transmit.

Also, please, assume good faith. Those advocating deletion may be for or against the death penalty. The death-penalty stances of voters on this nomination are irrelevant. What is relevant is the notability of the organization and the quality of the article.

— President Lethe 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable organisation with extremely trivial coverage. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable community organisation which fails WP:ORG. It should be noted that Australia does not have, and is not likely to reintroduce, the death penalty, so this is essentially an ideological opposition group against the death penalty in other parts of the world. Orderinchaos 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above, not a notable political organisation. Lankiveil 04:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per Lankiveil. - Philippe | Talk 05:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete another one for TWinSwat. (per Win). Twenty Years 12:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable organization. --Bryson 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. They aren't notable enough for mine as per similar nomination. Capitalistroadster 01:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable in any way. NSR77 ^T_C 04:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as while the issue is notable, the org is not. Sorry. :-( Bearian 20:15, 16 July 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.