Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Defense League

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. Needs rewrite, and "see also" to possible "subsidiary" info. Appears to have RS and N. (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Defense League[edit]

I originally heard about this group through Penn & Teller's episode about PETA. I ironically came here to look up more information on them... and found nothing to establish them as particularly noteworthy. If they are a PETA affiliate/subsidiary as the episode seemed to imply it could be simply redirected, but I'm not sure. Paliku (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have said an affiliate/subsidiary of the Animal Liberation Front, not PETA itself. The episode discussed PETA's connections to the terrorist group (a la Rodney Coronado), hence my confusion. Paliku (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THere seem to be 1,000 news articles that mention this group: [1]. I dunno if that's good enough... someone would need to go through and see if any are in depth coverage or just passing mentions. I don't have time. --Movingday29 (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some cases where a chapter was in the news, like when the Los Angeles chapter protested against the manager of the animal control/shelter department, but my main concern is that there's nothing concrete about the main group to put here. Maybe it goes with the nature of the group. Paliku (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the chapters combined are notable, and the article could focus on describing the actions of various chapters? it would make more sense than having an individual page on a bunch of various chapters. --Movingday29 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources in Movingday29's search, although it can take a while to find them among the trivial ones. Any notability that the local chapters have is shared by the main group; the alternative is having articles for the weakly notable local chapters and ignoring the group the connects them, which would be poor. There are certainly plenty of LA Times articles about the LA chapter (particularly in 2005), and there are articles concerning the activities of other chapters too (as well as a constant background relating to the animal shelters that they operate). JulesH (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the practice for national organizations is we keep the article about the main organization, and very rarely the chapters. One could conceivably make an argument otherwise,but it seems the simplest way to do things. DGG (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or rewrite The only paragraph is a copyvio from http://chicago.animaldefense.info. If kept, the article needs a rewrite. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.