Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Freechild Project

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. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Freechild Project

The Freechild Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete. This article is a gross advert and the group is non-notable. Puget 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Meets WP:ORG. According to that guideline, A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. All current citations on this article meet this criterion. The article cites a plethora of sources as to the notability of Freechild, and about the advertising aspect, I have no idea of how to fix it. User:Puget doesn't cite any particular violations of WP, and I think this is really just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Freechild 23:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This article is just self-promotion for a non-notable non-profit org, and it may even qualify as a vanity page. Many of the references are just vapor sources that don't support what the author(s) claim they do. For example, in support of the claim that the Freechild Project is "internationally recognized," the author(s) cite an article in the Australasian Journal of American Studies. Even if being mentioned in an obscure social-science journal published outside of America qualified as "international recognition" (IMHO, it doesn't), if you actually look at the source, the Freechild Project isn't even mentioned in the body of the article. Instead, a review of Todd Gitlin's book that the journal article's author found on the Freechild Project website is listed in the bibliography. In addition, the article lists as "accolades" several awards of questionable importance, such as a "cool site" award. Most of the Google hits for the site are for automated rip-off sites like Answers.com, or links from sites within the special-interest community that the Freechild Project is part of. Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive guide to everything in existence, and this organization does not merit a WP article. - Skaraoke 07:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Its ironic that Skaraoke asks for notability, then complains when the google hits, citations, and "special interest community that the Freechild Project is part of" does not meet his liking. I'm also not sure that any of the 17 citations on the article are so-called "vapor citations"; that much said, WP:ATT does not mention "vapor citations", and no other page on WP mentions "vapor citations". "Vapor citation" actually comes up 3 times on google. There are no exceptional claims in the article, particularly regarding The Freechild Project's international relevance (with multiple citations); neither is there original research or unsourced comments. As the article illustrates, this program is notable and merits a WP article. - Freechild 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

On second examination, Skaraoke mentioned "vapor source", not citation. My apologies. That does come up 55,100 times on google, clearly as a chemistry-related term, not in reference to citations though. - Freechild 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The term "vapor source" refers to a citation that "evaporates" once you examine it more closely (i.e. it doesn't actually say what the author was citing it to support, or it doesn't exist at all). Regardless of how many other people use this term, it is an accurate description of the citations that I mentioned above. Citations that can be described that way don't belong on WP, and articles that rely on citations like that don't belong on WP. - Skaraoke 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying this article relies on "vapor sources" implies that is all there is in the article and that the merit of the article is reliant upon those sources. You explained one specific citation of concern; since then point I have added several other citations that strengthen the claim made in the article. There are 16 other citations in the article; you have yet to mention any other. At best this article requires Template:Citecheck; this AfD is out of order according to that argument. - Freechild 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the aforementioned statement and several problematic citations, as per above stated concerns. - Freechild 23:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The article states:

Freechild has been acknowledged by cultural critic Henry Giroux as "especially relevant in getting young people to participate in the realms of politics and critical education."

As the article states before this quote, "cultural critic Henry Giroux" is on the Freechild Project's advisory board. Of course he's going to say the FP is "especially relevant." C'mon, who do you think you're fooling with this one? - 171.66.185.219 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No foolin' on that one. Of course, Henry Giroux is a world-renowned theorist who has published more than 30 books, with this quote coming from one of them. That alone justifies the quote; his perspective and attendance to the program probably justifies the article, too. That, along with the other citations, further supports the merit of this article. - Freechild 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. What's going on here? The creator of the AfD started it on his first edit, and has never edited Wikipedia outside of it. This IP above me has also never edited Wikipedia before; his first and only edit is to this page. There seems to be some sockpuppetry going on. --Rory096 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep-As someone who is not involved in Freechild but is also not biased against the Youth Movement, I have to urge a keep for this article. When i look at the arguements of the opposition, I am baffled. Skaraoke says it should be deleted because in his humble opinion Freechild isn't internationally recognized despites its mention in Australasian Journal of American Studies which he derides as an "obscure" source. The Australasian Journal of American Studies isn't an obscure source as it is so asserted. It is a multi-continental social science journal that specialises in the study of American soceity. I fail to see how it is somehow a not noteable that Freechild was picked up on in this Social Study journal. It seems to me that if an international social science journal feels this organization warrants mention, then that organization must have some merit and some recognition,

With all due respect, this misconception is a perfect example of why I objected to this source. I will say it again, with some extra punctuation just to make it a little more noticeable: The Freechild Project IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE. The article's bibliography cites a book review of Todd Gitlin's book that the author of the journal article accessed from the Freechild Projects website. This could have been found through a search engine, and it does not give rigorous support for the Freechild Project's "international recognition." Aren't you at least a little bothered by having been manipulated and deceived like this? - Skaraoke 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

even if its in a community Skaraoke doesn't happen to frequent.

I'm a graduate student in the School of Education at Stanford University. I've had plenty of contact with this community. - Skaraoke 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the opposition is so weak that they have realied solely on question whether the accolades are good enough to count.

But this really is a valid issue. The significance of having received an "accolade" is very much a function of how importance the accolade is. Getting the Nobel Peace Prize is an "accolade." So is having your dog get a Blue Ribbon at a dog show. Which one do think is going to get the book deal? Obviously, an extreme example, but hopefully you get the point. - Skaraoke 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Then, they resort to google hits as a back-up, even though if i recollect correctly, google hits aren't supposed to be used in article merit arguements. I apologize in advance if i'm wrong about that. And while i'm sure Skaraoke did go through all 44,000 google hits, its seems to me that a organization would be considered notable if it is held in high regard and mentioned alot within the community and niche it is in....

Then, once changes have been made to make the article even more acceptable, people argue for its deletion because they quote a person who liked the org so much it joined its advisory board as a show of support? I don't understand that arguement at all. If the Secretary of State said a threat was relevant, would you discount that because she is in the State Department?

I think deletion of this article is not based upon evidence but instead upon biases inherent within its detractors. If solid evidence was produced, I would be fine with deletion, but the only leg they stand on is flimsy conjecture and opinion. A deletion would be wrong and bad for WP Theowannabe 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Chip

In regards to what Rory096 posted, i too find that very fishy indeed. Ulterior motives? Theowannabe 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Chip

Motto: If all else fails, accuse the other side of cheating. Sockpuppetry is a serious accusation, and it should not be made without solid evidence. Otherwise it just makes you look desperate. - Skaraoke 12:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong KeepI am not involved in the FreeChild Project either, but I do not see any grounds for deletion. --Aking 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is a very serious accusation. But it would seem that its just you and then this mystey person who hasn't edited anything before and hasn't edited anything since that are opposing this article, so it is something that could be brought up. Futhermore, this "Rory096" hasn't chimed in on the debate, he mearly commented on something he noticed. He hasn't taken any sides at all. I don't see how his observation should reflect badly upon us. Theowannabe 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Chip

Maybe he has better things to do. Not everyone is willing to donate their free time to the same degree. That's hardly a legitimate cause for suspicion, and I hope it normally takes more than that for you to fail to assume good faith. (Please see the warning that I left on your talk page.) - Skaraoke 22:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't even accusing you, just saying that the IP and the nom were the same. You seem oddly defensive. Nevertheless, Theowannabe didn't make any personal attacks, he just commented on my noting the circumstances of the nom. That is certainly not personally attacking anybody; you shouldn't be so liberal with your warnings. --Rory096 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Hmm, I wasn't even accusing you, just saying that the IP and the nom were the same. You seem oddly defensive."

Ah, yes, the "I wasn't technically accusing you of anything, so your defensiveness makes me even more suspicious now" tactic never goes out of style, but I'm not going to fall for it. Are you trying to get an honorary position on HUAC? - Skaraoke 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, remain civil. I actually was not accusing you; I had no reason to think that you did anything wrong. I was only accusing the nom and the IP because they had each never edited Wikipedia outside of this AfD, which is suspicious. --Rory096 04:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, after User:Skaraoke refused to participate in WP:MEDCAB, I have requested the formal WP mediation process for an issue between User:Skaraoke and myself that pertains to this AfD, and I've cited talk page this as an incidence of his antagonism. You can read about it here. - Freechild 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge into CommonAction, which is its parent organization and which appears to have the same goals. One program operated by a regional nonprofit is not likely to be notable by itself unless it has won substantial recognition. However, whatever notability this project and its parent organization possess would be made more apparent by combining the two articles. --orlady 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep From the content of the article, it is clear that there is strong political opposition to the work of this organization by those who think it, variously, "liberal" or "communist" . Ignoring that, and not even considering whether that opposition by itself is enough to make for notability, the group and its work features in fully enough sources to be N, and has N sponsorship. DGG 01:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. The sourcing of this article is beyond merely suspect, it is clearly stretched to inflate claims of significance. As an example, The Freechild Project has also been cited for making theoretical contributions to the field of youth service[5] and youth participation.[6] is backed up by [5]: an undergraduate term paper that cites the Freechild project to help determine a framework for the rest of the paper: it's not an important point in the paper, it's certainly not a paper about the Freechild project, and it's just a term paper anyway: not at all a reliable published source. And [6] is not much better: it is a reliable source but it doesn't attribute any such thing as "theoretical contributions" to the Freechild project, rather, it's a source about how to foster youth participation in social activities in Halifax and mentions the Freechild Project. This problem is endemic in the article. Normally, I might say that the article should be edited to reflect the sources more accurately, but after examining the sources I am still unconvinced that the Freechild Project is really notable, and more importantly, the article has been written to promote it, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT (soapbox). Mangojuice^talk 15:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And in response to DGG, the criticism is not adequately supported either: there are three sources: the first doesn't mention Freechild, the third is a web forum, and the second is notes from an amateur talk in a club in which the Freechild web site is criticized for linking to adult topics. As Skaraoke said, the sources look good but evaporate completely on examination. Mangojuice^talk 15:47, 4 April 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.