The result was keep. Clear consensus. We do not delete articles because they're difficult to keep neutral--we instead work hard to make sure they do keep neutral. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC) reply
After reading the talk page over, it seems to me that there are too many problems with this page. If this is not chosen to be deleted, I think that somebody needs to take the initiative to completely re-write the article. It seems that User:Pamfreyd is indeed Pamela Freyd, and wrote the original article herself. She was warned on her talk page and also in this article's talk page (as she is the FMSF's Executive Director, a glaring NPOV issue)
Because the subject is controversial, I believe that using the current article as the basis for future improvement could be an extremely slow process, as the article's talk page clearly shows that editors are having a difficult time even agreeing on whether or not this is a legitimate organization; just as many debate whether or not sources cited are good sources.
NPOV issues have been raised multiple times, and I believe that if this organization is notable enough to merit a wikipedia article, then somebody who is NOT involved with the organization will create a new article and ensure that it is NPOV from the beginning. I think that this will lead to a much better quality of article, with more neutrality and better sources.
I will be very very pleased to read the debate on this, please chip in with your thoughts!! /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus What'sup, dog? 03:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Sturunner ( talk) 03:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Clear consensus. We do not delete articles because they're difficult to keep neutral--we instead work hard to make sure they do keep neutral. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC) reply
After reading the talk page over, it seems to me that there are too many problems with this page. If this is not chosen to be deleted, I think that somebody needs to take the initiative to completely re-write the article. It seems that User:Pamfreyd is indeed Pamela Freyd, and wrote the original article herself. She was warned on her talk page and also in this article's talk page (as she is the FMSF's Executive Director, a glaring NPOV issue)
Because the subject is controversial, I believe that using the current article as the basis for future improvement could be an extremely slow process, as the article's talk page clearly shows that editors are having a difficult time even agreeing on whether or not this is a legitimate organization; just as many debate whether or not sources cited are good sources.
NPOV issues have been raised multiple times, and I believe that if this organization is notable enough to merit a wikipedia article, then somebody who is NOT involved with the organization will create a new article and ensure that it is NPOV from the beginning. I think that this will lead to a much better quality of article, with more neutrality and better sources.
I will be very very pleased to read the debate on this, please chip in with your thoughts!! /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus What'sup, dog? 03:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Sturunner ( talk) 03:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply