Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exodus (organization)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, article is now completely different from the one that was nominated - SimonP 22:23, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Exodus (organization)

Copyvio and advert. See: [1] unsigned by Sethmahoney

What's your vote, Sethmahoney? Fix or delete? —msh210 21:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I vote Delete or redirect to
    Ex-gay, which already has a section on Exodus. -Seth Mahoney
    22:24, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: For legal reasons, I'm blanking-copyvioing it. See old version to vote. —msh210 21:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This might be a legitimate (if non-PC) subject for an article - but as it stands I agree it is a copyvio and POV amend or delete --
  Doc Glasgow
  21:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I am being bold and redirecting this to
  Ex-gay, an article which has a good (non-copyvio) section on Exodus, and other similar organizations too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk
  23:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Split out Section is big enough to have its own article. Klonimus 02:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, copyright violation. No redirect - who would type in "Exodus (organization)" in the search engine? Megan1967 04:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is a good point, but we have a link to
    Ex-gay through a redirect such as the one I created. --Tony Sidaway|Talk
    08:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio and either split out section from
  ex-gay or redirect. (Deleting admin should make sure they're deleting the right thing :) ) Mgm|^(talk)
  08:21, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I performed the split and restored the VfD notice (I'll edit
    ex-gay to reflect that if this article survives VfD). --Tony Sidaway|Talk
    11:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)