Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autism Initiatives

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 speedy delete per CSD G12: copyvio. Changing a few sentences makes it a derivative of a copyvio, which still makes it a copyvio. —Kurykh 20:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Autism Initiatives

Autism Initiatives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Non-notable charity. Searches on Google or Yahoo didn't turn up enough reliable independent sources. Blueboy96 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This company is notable. I don't work for them, but I know someone who does. Don't delete it, or you'll get some people in just to vote in this AFD. --AutismWorker100 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)— AutismWorker100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment by nom I have since discovered that this is a blatant copyright violation; the article is a direct cut-and-paste from [1], and has been tagged accordingly. Blueboy96 20:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Blueboy96, it is 'not' a copyvio, I removed the bits and reworded it, so don't use that guff. --Cold washed 20:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)— Cold washed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A mere onetwo-sentence difference. Please. Blueboy96 20:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment information on the charity from the UK government here. Seems to fail notability requirements. Eliz81 20:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough, if it gets deleted this will be re-created (btw, this wasn't written by any employee, just a few fanbois!) --Jazzramdude 20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and SALT if this isn't speedied - no assertion of notability through independent sources, despite being around for 33-35 years (the reword now has factual errors, such as the founding date). Definite puppetry; no one has heard of it until the article was created, and all of a sudden a bunch of redlink users with no edits are voting keep? MSJapan 20:55, 18 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.