Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspies For Freedom

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 of the debate was keep; apparent bad-faith nomination. DS 23:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aspies_For_Freedom

This is a puzzle that I'm struggling to understand. What is Aspies For Freedom? A forum or an organisation? Does it have forum users or members? Leaders or owners? When its only visible activist Joe Mele was removed from the group, all that happened, as far as I can tell, is his account was banned from the forum.

My instinct says that the entire Template:Autism_rights_movement is a fiction, documenting nothing more than a clever manipulation of Google and Wikipedia. All the Amy Nelson-created autism sites and domains are virtually contentless, with extensive links to each other. At dmoz they would mostly be rejected as linkfarms. This is not dmoz - a directory of websites - but an encyclopedia of things that exist whether or not websites about them also exist. Discussssssss. CalG 05:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, well, the website says the organization was featured in New Scientist, MSNBC, and other places, and sure enough, some Googling turns up those results. But I'm not sure whether this should be kept or not. --Coredesat 06:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wow only 14 unique for "Aspies For Freedom" on Google with 72,800 non-unique links. Serious link farming there... Wickethewok 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wickethewok and inability to find any real notability beyond what is mentioned on the website, which isn't enough. --Coredesat 07:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep: Prominent advocacy group, as indicated by mainstream media coverage, representing a significant stakeholder community. Joe Mele may have left, but Gareth is a relatively well known figure in his community. Ombudsman 20:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: The advocacy group and/or its members has been cited by New Scientist, MSNBC, and the New York Times. IMO that is enough to keep. Q0 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn org and cruft. Somebody needs to look at the rest of the "autism rights movement" related articles too as they look to be somebody's attempt to use Wikipedia to push their OR, push anti-cure POV and/or create a "movement" out of thin air. KleenupKrew 10:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a personal attempt by CalG to cause some problems for me personally by placing irrelevant disparaging comments on the aspies for freedom talk page, as he has done on the chatautism talk page. Instead of removing an irrelevant personal attack on that page he added his own nasty comment too. I don't see why the Aspies For Freedom page should be deleted when the group is an important part of the autism rights movement as a whole, and we have members from all around the world, and support from mainstream professionals such as Professor Simon Baron-Cohen. There are two documentaries being made concerning autism rights and featuring aspies for freedom in particular at the moment by well know documentary makers. AmyNelson 23:24, 22 June 2006 (BST)
• Keep: I agree, since it meets notibility criteria, then keep it. Although I do not know what to make of likely harrassment, but by my understanding, CalG may have some grudge against Amy (Although I have no clear evidence ATM). -- Masterjamie 22:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  Response: I have a strong personal dislike of Amy Nelson. My editing of pages concerning her is primarily motivated by a desire to upset Amy, and secondarily to improve Wikipedia. It seems the largely fictitious autism rights movement allows significant overlap in these aims. Assume good faith. CalG 02:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I agree with Amy, I also don't see why the Aspies For Freedom page should be deleted, seeing how important the group is. As I am a member myself I know that the group is an important part of the autism rights movement. I find the page very informative and useful even though I haven't read it in a long time. Pika Pikachu2005 00:00, 23 June 2006 (BST)
• Keep: I have to agree that it is note worthy by the fact that it has been covered by several mainstream media outlets, some of which someone else here meantioned so I will not list them again, also it is a significant autism rights movement project, and known for being the driving force of Autistic Pride Day which also has generated some media coverage for the cause MttJocy 09:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep: The aspies for freedom group has shedloads of useful, hard to find information. It's a valuable commodity in the aspergers and autism community. Pauric 09:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Not "fiction" - the autism rights movement and Aspies For Freedom is very real, as evidenced by the activity on their community forum and IRC network. Plus, VfD author just admitted having an irrelevant agenda. -- intgr 13:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The reason why so many non-unique links show up in Google is not because of link farming, but because AFF is a very active civil rights forum with almost 50,000 articles posted. Almost all of the duplicate results in Google are articles on the AFF forum. I just googled "Aspies for Freedom" and found 84 unique links; in past searches I have found more than one hundred unique links, depending on how recently AFF received media coverage.Bonnie Ventura 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Aspies for Freedom is a notable organization within the autistic community. While the article needs editing, it should not be deleted. p.s. I like and respect Amy Nelson and I believe she is pushing a good cause. Andrea Parton 16:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - But we need to investigate other similar organisations with the view of creating a page with all of them on it S.Skinner 13:49, 24 June 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.