Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of organization

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 delete. Very few of the Keep nominations address the major issues with this article, that of OR and SYNTH. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Over-extended dictionary definition which seeks to encompass all possible support groups even if they're not actually called "friends of..." Most dictionaries give this a single line at most. Fails WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:RS, WP:OR andy (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The point of this article is to cover a notable topic. There are thousands of "friends of" organizations and they are a distinct topic. They tend to be created because of something being in a state of neglect. Whereas most charities, groups or clubs are based on a topic of interest or passion. They are also unique as they tend to be precursors to actual formal organizations, 501c3s, and NGOs and have a local in nature or very specific mission.Thisbites (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Speedy Keep with a possible support of moving to a better name if anyone can think of it. This is a valid specific type of organization, normally for charitable donors and sometimes for volunteer support networks without being part of the main institution. Potentially useful as a disambiguation page as well as an encyclopaedic summary page and does not seem adequately covered under parent articles. The nominator has pointed to RS and OR as a rationale for this AFD, these do not seem appropriate as this is hardly original research and reliable sources exist in abundance for the nature of the organization of chartable institutions and the regulation thereof. The article has yet to exist for 24 hours, this AFD was created too quickly to provide the author an opportunity to improve the sourcing and in my opinion there is a high probability of this being improved in the near future, improvement tags were easily sufficient to address these points. Fæ (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• These are simply groups that have similar sounding names. Look at the examples in the article - what on Earth is there in common between The British Museum Friends, Friends of Humanity (a fictional anti-mutant hate group in Marvel comics), Friends of God (medieval German mystics who were burned at the stake) and Friend of Dorothy (a slang term for gay men)? There's no such thing as a "friends of" organisation - and the article has no references to prove otherwise. That's what I mean about RS and OR. Existing articles such as Support group and Charitable organization cover specific uses perfectly adequately. andy (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they don't, at all. Membership organization would be the most obvious nearest thing, but this was a stupid redirect until just now, & needs expansion. Support group covers a range of things, by no means all the same as this at all. You are right about the outliers, which I removed (so giving you something else to complain about it seems) Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, there is a distinction between support group and "supporting organization" or "supporter organization" (more details on IRS definition of "supporting organization" in a later comment), as well as a distinction between charitable organizations and political organizations. YMMV as to what these distinctions are, if, like andy, you've dealt with educated speakers of British English on a regular basis. If there were a single type of organization that corresponded exactly to this article, wouldn't that term be in common use by the legal profession already? Trilliumz (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already made the point about RS in line with WP:BEFORE; that the term is used in great variety is not a rationale to delete the article either. If you go to Google Books and do a 10 second search, you will trip over a large number of legal texts that use the term quite specifically and this alone would be worth exploring in an encyclopaedic article, for example O'Halloran, Kerry; McGregor-Lowndes, Myles; Simon, Karla W. (2008), Charity law & social policy: national and international perspectives on the functions of the law relating to charities, Springer, ISBN 9781402084133. I have to disagree with your counter examples, Support group and Charitable organization do not mention Friends associations or organizations once and so cannot be described as perfectly adequate. --Fæ (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're missing the point. Some groups called "Friends of..." have a lot in common and some simply don't. Being a friend of the British Museum is pretty much the same as being a friend of the Smithsonian but is utterly different from being a friend of Bill or a friend of Dorothy! Lumping them all together as a single concept is not merely silly, it's just plain wrong. Unless of course you're arguing that patrons of the arts tend to be gay medieval alcoholics with a hatred of mutants. In the end the best that can be done with this article is to create a dictionary definition of one use of the term "friend" and, just possibly, a DAB page. andy (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I do get the point and as I highlighted the nomination does not refer to appropriate policy to underpin it. I am not against discussing a move proposal or a proposal to reformat this article as an extended DAB and perhaps you could recognize that this could be done without escalating to AFD in less than 24 hours after creation? Fæ (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. The article isn't actually about anything at the moment so it needs to be binned. You could write a DAB page if you threw away the entire content and also the title. I'm not sure what it would say though since there's no such actual thing as a "friends of" organization - merely some groups of people that are called "friends of...", some that aren't called "friends of..." but could be, and some that are called "friends of..." and needn't be. The DAB page would have to say that "friends of..." might refer to pretty much any kind of collection of people ranging from formal groups such as museum friends, with a constitution and a charitable purpose, through to people who merely have some general characteristic in common such as friends of Dorothy (who definitely aren't a charity). This is why dictionaries were invented. But if you still disagree please add some references to the article. andy (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool, in which case you have failed to apply WP:BEFORE criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10. Consequently I am changing my opinion to speedy keep. Thanks for the clarifying discussion --Fæ (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite sure how you get there, but whatever. I rather enjoy the sweeping generalisations in reference #3, for example "The "Friends of" organization is almost always a U.S. nonprofit corporation". Wow. However I note that the same paragraph makes it clear that this is simply a shorthand term that is used in a specific context in the article and based on a common but not universal usage. The reference is silent about gay men, medieval mystics and others such as The Friends of Mine Festival and The Friends of Fulham. andy (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You are welcome to discuss the refinement and detailed content of sources on the article talk page which is where article improvement normally takes place rather than resorting to the iron hammer of AfD to expect better references. --Fæ (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The current state of this article reeks of WP:SYNTH. (Comparing Friends of the Earth, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, and Friends of Dorothy as similar types of organziations because of their names? Seriously?) Can a complete overwrite fix the issues? No. The first two paragraphs are complete WP:OR, and is proven incorrect by just some of the "examples" listed. The third paragraph is not, but would make much more sense to be included in an existing article, like Charitable organization. Singularity42 (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you clarify how this article which has been nominated due to a lack of sources (unsurprising considering how hastily it was nominated while still under construction) can also fail to meet SYNTH which would explicitly require information to be gathered from multiple sources? --Fæ (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Easy: first you "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (that's the SYNTH bit) and then you don't cite the sources (that's the RS bit). I note that the references you added are all about US tax law and don't answer the question of how all the other uses of the term are supposed to be related. Of course, if there are no sources that explain this then the article isn't a synthesis, it's WP:MADEUP. andy (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree not everything is properly explained and it is not a synthesis. My addition of sources are not intended to fix all the problems in one sweep, this quite normal in an improving article and in no way do I own this article and so feel no responsibility for all of its content. If you feel the article is a fantasy, you should have nominated it on that basis and you always were free to improve it rather than hastily nominate it without following WP:BEFORE. --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (e/c) Synth in the sense that 1) there are RSs' (not necessarily in this specific article) that there is a public interest group that monitors Canadian Broadcasting called "Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, 2) there are RSs' (not necessarily in this specific article) there there is a group of environmental protection groups called "Friends of the Earth", 3) there are RSs (not necessarily in this specific article) that there is slang term for gay men called "Friends of Dorothy", 4) (repeat as necessary for some of the other articles listed), 5) the author implies that these are similar groups whose members have similar relationships with the subject of the "Friends of [subject]" in the title of the group, simiply because they start with "Friends of". That is SYNTH. If you feel it does not strictly meet the WP:SYNTH because the sources have not actually been cited in this specific article (which I believe is a stricter then necessary definition that is not actually listed in the policy) then it would still be OR. Singularity42 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was created yesterday. You have provided a rationalization for deletion based on a claim of synthesis of potential sources in other articles, this is not supported by SYNTH. If you feel the article fails OR then this might be a matter for improvement tags on the article as I see statements of the obvious needing some source rather than an original paper; raising an AFD in this situation explicitly fails WP:BEFORE. Fæ (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm worried about getting off-topic here, as I think we have different interpretations of WP:SYNTH, which should probably be discussed at that talk page rather than here. Suffice it to say, my reading of the policy is that the sources do not have to be expressly cited in the article for there to be an improper synthesis of other sources. The contrary interpretation to me seems overly strict and not in the spirit of what the policy stands for. But as I said, we don't seem to be in agreement on that. I'll probably start a discussion on that talk policy's talk page on a later date to determine what the consensus is. Singularity42 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is always scope for common sense, however the normal way to interpret policy is to go by what is written rather than guess as to its spirit might be. Please add a link to the related policy discussion thread should you start one. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I expanded the article somewhat from the initial few lines, but I think too many examples have now been added. I will trim back to ones that exemplify the typical meaning. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How can you say that the meaning you choose will be the "typical" one? You need reliable sources to prove that the typical meaning of "Friends of..." is X. andy (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we know that a medieval mystical order & some group in a fictional universe are not "typical" (of course you're welcome to find RS that they are). Friends of Footown library is typical. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who says a religious order is not "typical"? What about The Religious Society of Friends or the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, both of which are far larger and more important than the Friends of Lulu? Even disregarding the other examples surely you can see that a definition that has to encompass the Quakers on the one hand and the promotion of female interests in the comic book industry on the other is pretty weird? andy (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the definition doesn't encompass them, which is why neither of those religious denominations (the Buddhist one is just a redirect) should be included as examples. Of course "Friends of St Foo's Parish Church" would be ok. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject of this article - any organization referred to as or named "Friends of (insert cause here)" - is just not a valid topic for an article. The only sentence in the article is the last one with 5 references, none of which constitute in depth coverage of the topic. Many political organizations/election funds use the same nomenclature, as do many non-charitable organizations. Even if all of those could be feasibly grouped together in a coherent article, being named "Friends of whatever" is not a defining characteristic that would support the synthesis required to come up with a sustainable article. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Among the various "Friends of _____" groups discussed in this article, the "Friends" don't all typically have the same relationship to "______" in each case. The American Friends of the Louvre (mentioned in one of the sources cited) may be trying to fund the Louvre, but the Friends of Lulu aren't trying to give money to Lulu; rather, Lulu is a fictional character who symbolizes the group's interests. To try to describe all the groups that have the words "Friends of ..." in their names in a single article requires them to be discussed at such a high level of abstraction that the article winds up not saying anything meaningful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is probably worth comparing to Professional association which covers a range of organizations including businesses which have "PA" in the title. The simple step of separating the poorly defined list of organizations from the main article about these organization types might resolve the issue that people seem to have with conceiving of this an an encyclopaedic entry. --Fæ (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The references in the article prove its a real thing, and clearly notable. This is a legally recognized term which has requirements for its use for an officially recognized charity. See [1] for information about that. Dream Focus 11:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately the article doesn't actually say that. It's not "a legally recognized term" except perhaps in US tax planning - here in the UK for example there's no such legal or tax usage and even in the US, as the examples show, there are plenty of uses that aren't charitable but merely general support groups. The argument in this AfD is not about the notability of the term but about the impossibility of legitimately lumping all usages together as if they all had something significant in common. andy (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination is that this is a dictionary definition that also fails OR and fails RS. It is poor practice to start re-interpreting the basis of the nomination in the middle of the AfD, though you could propose to speedy close this AfD if, say, you feel that the nomination was raised by mistake, is misleadingly expressed or that the nominator failed to follow the basic criteria of WP:BEFORE. That an article might be hard to write and brings together broad topics is not a rationale for deletion. Fæ (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The article says different things as its changed back and forth between things. The original version talks of "friends of" used for preserving sites. The article can be about the officially recognized legal term, for which there are ample references, and then mention that others use the term is also used by others at times, but that not what the article is about. Dream Focus 02:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—IANAL, but it appears that "Friends of" organizations have non-profit 501(c)3 tax-exempt status status under US law.[2][3][4] The topic deserves coverage. A rename from 'organization' to 'organizations' may make sense. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be incorrect. Some organizations that use the name may have such status, but the name itself is not an indicator of anything. Political campaign funds enjoy no such status, but are often named this way (Friends of Scott Walker and Friends of Mike Sheridan noted in this article). Just being named "Friends of" doesn't indicate anything. It is not a defining characteristic. It's a very common name for political committees and they in no way meet what this article is attempting to suggest - that organizations named "Friends of whatever" are charitable organizations. Some small portion of them may be so, but in depth coverage of such a hypothesis has not been identified. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, although there do appear to be some associated regulations and legal advice.[5][6][7] Nevertheless, it's a common enough designation for non-profit organizations that it appears notable and so I will retain my support. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is turning out to be an issue about US tax exempt status. If that's what the article says, fair enough, but it doesn't. In fact the references given so far state clearly that you don't have to be called "Friends of" to have 501(c)3 status and you don't have to have 501(c)3 status to be called "Friends of". Over on this side of the pond it's even simpler - we have our own tax laws that don't even mention the term. You can be "Friends of" a pub or a village cricket team, for example, but according to the way the article is turning out that's somehow related to a particular part of US tax law. I always thought that wikipedia was a global encyclopaedia... How about renaming the article "501(c)3 (US tax exempt status)" and including the relevant bits from this article? BTW that's a serious suggestion. andy (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, just noticed 501(c) which covers the same ground as Friends of organization as far as tax law is concerned. DAB, anyone? andy (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just silly. The article is emphatically NOT about the specific tax status that some US "Friends of ..." organizations enjoy, and only heroic distortion of what it says can result in that claim. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought that was the growing consensus. Well if it's not then the article should make clear - very clear - why and how "Friends of Lulu" has anything in common with "Friends of Canadian Broadcasting". Relevant and reliable references are, as is so often the case on wikipedia, just a teensy weensy bit useful. andy (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• AFD is not a forum to discuss article improvement and your nomination is not helped by making sarcastic comments, particularly to highly experienced contributors. If you had followed the basic criteria of WP:BEFORE you would have tagged the article for improvement and discussed your repeated points about sourcing and the focus of the article on the article talk page rather than discouraging the article creator with a PROD 80 minutes after article creation followed by an AFD 8 hours after the PROD was removed with no attempt at discussion. --Fæ (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy none of your arguments are truly rooted in policy with regards to the actual deletion they are highly illogical and off point. "Friends of" Organizations do exist. Some of them are 501c3s in the United States and the paperwork for that charity status exemplifies that is a "kind of" organization not that all 501c3s are such. Some of them are not in the United States at all. This is indeed a global encyclopedia but if we are dealing with an American topic, Britain is quite irrelevant or vice versa. That argument has nothing to do with deletion here nor is it valid since there are British and Australian groups that follow a similar format. "friends of" organizations have a unique format and impetus which is why they are distinguished by name. They are very specific usually locally based charities or special purpose lobby or fundraising groups. Similar to special-purpose district by analogy, now we would not remove the jurisdiction just because a SPD is also a jurisdiction or could be now would we?Thisbites (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd say the references in the two Wiley textbooks are enough to indicate notability here, given that it's a status that has been covered in several business/accounting textbooks. Problems with the current article can be fixed with regular editing rather than outright deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In light of some of the comments above, I am willing to reconsider my position. I just don't see a way to address a common thread through all organizations with this naming convention, and the claim in the article that this name has a "legal definition" in the US (the IRS site does not say any such thing). I can find no indication in the US Code or IRS regulations that would equate the name to the status. I started to tag that sentence with a "citation needed" tag, but thought it would be best to wait until the AfD was done. There is no source to be found equating this kind of name with the status, and no concise definition to be found due to the wide range of organizations using similar names. I still don't see it as being the required defining characteristic, but I would be willing to look at sources if any can be identified. The article, as it stands, uses a non-defining characteristic and much WP:SYNTH to make a claim that has not been proven. It is not a term in general use per WP:COMMON, so I fail to see why it should not be deleted or simply redirected to 501 (c). Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of organizations are not the same as 501C3s, some happen to be so, that is all.Thisbites (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So far there have been no reliable sources to show that "Friends of" is anything more than a vernacular usage with many different applications. Dorothy, Lulu and the British Museum all have friends. Me and my friends (especially Dave) would definitely count as Friends of the Head of the River but so what? andy (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are demonstrating a defiant attitude with regards to accepting that no one is claiming that friends as in acquaintances is the subject of the article and also that the term "friends of organization" is a legally recognized and notable term used in a variety of official capacities to refer to this sort of organization. You and you're friends are not a club or organization, you do not share a common name that represents all of you nor do you have a cause, therefore casual friends clearly does not equate a "FoO".Thisbites (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• With regard to the legal definition, "friends of" may not be on the IRS site but it is definitely explicitly discussed as an organizational type in the citations given which are advising on how to apply the legislation. Fæ (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments below for RS regarding common use of this term in the Museums and Libraries communities.Trilliumz (talk)

• Delete: a liberal sprinkling of WP:OR & WP:SYNTH combined with irrelevancies (the Society of Friends), a ref-bombed (half the references in the entire article) single sentence on tax status and a WP:DICTDEF. Little indication of a cohesive topic, let alone one for which "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were told that The Society of Friends had been removed before you made this comment. I am surprised none of the deleters have taken notice of the International Federation of Friends of Museums, with its 18 national federations. There is a considerable literature within the trade, as a look at their website will show. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you told me some 4 minutes after I posted here (you told me that it had previously been removed only 3 minutes before I posted -- so I wasn't aware of that either when I posted). The problem is not that individual 'Friends of' organisations may be notable, but that trying to aggregate them together into a general topic appears impossible without a high level of WP:Synthesis and Original Research (which is one reason why on Wikipedia notability is WP:NOTINHERITED -- to avoid such transitive leaps that outrun the sources). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what manner is it a synthesis that individual government websites name "FOOs" as a particular type of entity?Thisbites (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not state that it is "a synthesis that individual government websites name 'FOOs' as a particular type of entity" --probably because the article does not state this. However, I would state that the claim that "The formula 'Friends of ...' provides a common form of name for a membership organization, support group, or community group that is dedicated to the support, promotion or protection of a particular thing such as a site, building, organization, or a more general but specialized concept" goes well beyond what Anheier & List (the cited source) states about the topic -- ans is thus WP:Synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be reiterated enough that this is not an article about organizations that use the term "friends" in their name, rather those that operate a "friends of x" format in their nomenclature and structure.Thisbites (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What on Earth do you mean? According to Roget "nomenclature" is a synonym for "name". Having a "Friends of" format in their nomenclature is precisely the name as having "friends of" in their name! And what is a "friends of" structure? andy (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was not a response to you and it is very clear this article is not about anything with the word friends in their name, its about organizations that use a "friends of x" style name. I did not say having friends of in their nomenclature is the same as having it in their name please reread it. I said having the word friend (example "Tom's Friend Sally" or "AT&T's Friends and Partners in the Community") in their name is not the same as having their name structured as friends of x (example: "Friends of Five Creeks" or "Friends of Andy Street") the impetus is to denote that it is a communal group that is dedicated to one particular topic not one that has the word friends in it (please note that i said "friends" not friends of, I am stating that not every group with the word "f-r-i-e-n-d-s" in it is not a "friends of" organization. I did not refer to "friends of structure" as a noun, i used "friend of" as a noun and structure as an adjective meaning both naming convention and grammatical grouping of words, do you understand what on earth I meant now?Thisbites (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a clue! You appear to be saying that this article includes "Friends of the British Museum" but not "Friends of God" despite the fact that they are both "a communal group that is dedicated to one particular topic" because "not every group with the word "f-r-i-e-n-d-s" in it is a "friends of" organization". Unfortunately the article doesn't contain any means of separating the two usages, if indeed there is a difference. The definition, such as it is, explicitly states rather delightfully that the term can apply to any group that supports "a more general but specialized concept". We seem to have parted company with the English language here!.

Possibly what you mean is that this article is about something that you refer to as a "friends of" organisation and not about something that other people might refer to using exactly the same terminology. In which case it's about as OR as it's possible to get. andy (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: is this article about "a membership organization, support group, community group that is dedicated to the support, promotion or protection of a particular thing", charities whose sole purpose is to raise money for a specific foreign charity (both regardless of name), or organisations with "Friends of" in their name (regardless of purpose), or something more/less/other, and more importantly can anybody cite a source that explicitly states that it is one-and-not-the-others without having to violate WP:No original research in order to reach this definition? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article I can tell you that it would be the first and latter but not the second, as that is my understanding of what these organizations are. I have not been able to find all the sources quite yet but have seen them in the past. The AfD was truly premature and I have not had the time to put the article together and every edit I make seems to be reverted at this time. But honest to say this is a unique topic that does not fit anywhere else and that due to the copious use of the "friends of x" format for an organization it is a notable term and as inclusive as wikipedia is any use should be covered but I don't think anyone familiar with these groups would say its any charity I think the common sense understanding is that they are groups dedicated to one topic (usually of local importance) that use this naming structure.Thisbites (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I can identify several related meanings of the term that are sufficiently similar to render a dab page pointless and confusing but sufficiently different to require a ground-up rewrite of the article (which I'm working on): charities and other tax-exempt bodies (which are by definition based in a single jurisdiction); environmental and other pressure groups (which may or may not be charitable and may be trans-national); religious orders (usually charitable, either national or trans-national); informal support or pressure groups (usually local). There may be others too. As it stands the article must be WP:SYNTH. andy (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which meanings are those? And which articles would the "FOO disambiguation" page go to? If you are working to rewrite the article why are you suggesting deletion in the first place? It seems all the examples you provided simply have a different topic of interest or scope (local vs. national or international) but they all fit the same definition. Again what articles would you redirect too?Thisbites (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It appears that the term "Friends organization" has a much different meaning in international fundraising than it does in the library world; drawing the distinction between these two uses of the term in different fields would seem an appropriate topic for an article. I added 2 quick sections with quotes; someone who knows more about legal matters than me would need to develop them. The article meets WP:RS for libraries, in that it's the American Library Association that's providing support for founding these groups. I would think that The Council on Foundations would be a reliable source for international groups. I'm not sure how all the other examples of Friends organizations fit in, or how this term is used outside the US. Perhaps the other groups could simply be mentioned as uses of this name which may have a different purpose.

It seems premature to put much effort into developing these sections, as the comments above suggest that anything that's added may simply be deleted, WP:DEMOLISH. This leads to the next question: if we were to write two new articles on the use of the term in the two different fields named above, would y'all move to delete them ASAP also? Wouldn't it be easier to simply give this article a chance? Legal / libraries / offshore fundraising / museums are four rather divergent fields and skill sets, so this article may well need collaboration by several people. Trilliumz (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the meaning is that different in fact. The "international" business is also a red herring; it may matter for tax purposes where the thing befriended is, but otherwise not much. The British Museum Friends (UK) and the American Friends of the British Museum are doing the same things. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm starting to think that a colossal rewrite might do the trick, but unfortunately the original author and several other contributors seem set against it. Their argument appears to be that there is an easily defined thing called a "Friends of" organization which is pretty much identical with a certain type of US tax exempt body. It includes friends of museums, for example, but not religious bodies called "Friends of". Until they accept that such a loose phrase can also include a huge range of non-US or non-charitable or non-tax-exempt bodies then we have a problem. "Friends of..." is just a thing people say and nothing more. That's why I think it should be deleted. andy (talk)

The definition in the lead is perfectly adequate imo; the US tax status, which I haven't looked into at all, seems pretty incidental. I have certainly never suggested in any way this is a US phenomenon - the examples include more UK ones, and you still ignore the International Federation, with member organizations from 30 countries. Bodies that fit the definition in the lead can be covered, regardless of name; those that don't should not be, also regardless of names. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It isn't "just anybody" using a loose phrase in casual conversation-- this is a topic of discussion at professional meetings. The term "Friends organization" has very specific usages in the US. The use in libararies will be discussed at three American Library Association 2011 conference sessions: 1, 2,3. A Wisconsin .gov website provides specific info about Friends organizations and Wisconsin law. Maintaining tax-exempt status appears important to some people in the US, as per articles How To Keep An Iron Grip On Your Tax-Exempt Status and How Not To Lose Your Tax-Exempt Status. "Friends Groups are generally defined as nonprofit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations established primarily to support a specific park area or a group of parks. While these groups vary in size, structure, and priorities, they all operate in partnership with parks under a formal written agreement."-- US National Park Service, as defined in a Draft Friends Policy, a federal document. We have a British Association of Friends of Museums which is a member of the World Association of Friends of Museums. Here is an attempt to explain The difference between a Friends organization and a 501C3. The term may also be used by Quakers to denote an organization affiliated with the Society of Friends. These officially specified uses are over and beyond the less formal uses of 1) a group of friends and/or people who hope to become friends, 2) a group sharing a specific interest or affiliation, or 3) a group supporting a particular organization.

One professional society, one Federal agency, one state agency, one international organization, one national organzation, one religious group, a mention in a Wiley textbook on accounting standards and a definition in a dictionary about nonprofits. WP:CHANCE Isn't this enough in the way of WP:RS? Trilliumz (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on RS, but all the libraries, museums etc groups are examples of "3)a group supporting a particular organization" (or thing - ie natural area), are they not? As mentioned above, the federation also has tons of conference papers online. The lawyer's website does not in fact suggest that there is a necessary difference between a Friends organization and a 501C3 - some will meet the criteria for the status & some won't. It is the same with being a UK charity. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the background material on the federal site, you can see that "Friends" is a simply shorthand form of a particular type of support organisation more correctly called "Refuge Friends" and working with the National Wildlife Refuge Association. The three examples given here include one that does not use the word "Friends" in its name. As I have stated previously, the term is used for convenience only and enjoys exactly zero legal status. That's why Friends of The Lewes Arms also counts as a "Friends of" organisation in the terms specified in the article: "a membership organization, support group, or community group that is dedicated to the support, promotion or protection of a particular thing such as a site, building, organization, or a more general but specialized concept". They fought to get local beer reinstated at their favourite pub - it made national news in the UK (see here) andy (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still seems to me that Fae's initial comments square with the experience of working professionals, and that disambiguation / categorization of these groups is helpful for organizing the encyclopedia. Agreed that "Friends group" is not a legal status under law, but it is used by lawyers nonetheless who are seeking to identify a certain subset of non-profit clients with similar issues and concerns. I really don't get it as to how such a day-to-day term for something found in so many US communities with a public library, and discussed at professional conferences by a documented community of practice, would not meet criteria for inclusion. I think it's quite possible to write an article that would respond to the various concerns raised in this discussion.

Having struggled with expressing EU governance and social science concepts in US terms in the past, my experience is that Europe/US are related but not identical societies that need to be handled each in their own terms and set of concepts if you want to be accurate. My experience is that it is not possible to synchronize UK/German/Austrian organizational structures exactly to US models, or vice-versa. Most every country will have some provisions in law and in custom for charitable organizations, but the organizational structures don't correspond exactly across national borders because the underlying legal and social structures are different. My suggestion on this would be to break out the European/UK usages from the US. Trilliumz (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually it's simpler than that. There are various notable uses of the term but no single use that is the use and would qualify as the subject of a definitive article. I can't see a problem, for example, with breaking out separate articles to discuss some uses such as "Friends organizations in US tax law", "Friends organisations in EU charity law", "Friends groups in religion" and so on. But you simply can't lump them together in the way this article proposes because there is no single, dominant meaning of the term. andy (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of these subjects are notable in themselves. What on earth would "Friends groups in religion" be? But there is a broad but not unduly so concept that works worldwide, and is described in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Friends groups in religion" doesn't exist as a general concept, (unless you know way more about theology than I do). This adjective "Friends" means "Quaker." It's like saying "Methodist" or "Hindu" or what have you; the word "Friends" describes members of a specific religious group. "Friends groups" redirects to Religious Society of Friends or to Category:Quaker organizations "Friends groups" needs disambiguation, just like "Lutheran Social Services, a human services organization affiliated with Lutheran Services in America" on the LSS page. (The Religious Society of Friends appears on the Friends (disambiguation) page already.) Trilliumz (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, which is why they don't belong in the article, unlike "Friends of Footown Quaker Meeting House" say. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the "Friends of Truth" (which eventually became the Society of Friends) provides a historical example of a "Friends of" group which just happened to coalesce around common socio-religious interests (Summers, Steve (2010). Friendship: Exploring Its Implications for the Church in Postmodernity. Ecclesiological Investigations. Vol. 7. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 165 of 224. ISBN 9780567490643. Retrieved 2011-06-09. [...] the Society of Friends take their name from their self-description 'Friends of Truth' or 'Friends of the Truth', dating from their inception [...]), and merits mention as such. -- Jandalhandler (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is similarity by shared name, which we should guard against. The Quakers are a reasonably conventional "independent" Protestant denomination, not a group of the type covered here, where many members typically pay to join & then forget all about the group. They did not "just happen to coalesce around common socio-religious interests", they were founded by a small number of highly motivated and actiive religious extremists (as seen at the time). Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Friends of Truth" used the "Friends of ..." formula in the 17th century. Whatever their organic origins and subsequent leadership takeovers and whatever their subsequent naming or theology, they went through a stage (like most religious organizations) in which they comprised what the article currently calls "a membership organization, support group, or community group that is dedicated to the support, promotion or protection of a particular thing such as a site, building, organization, or a more general concept or area of interest". This "similarity by shared" naming lies at the core of the article. (Compare for example the fascinating and varied -stan article.) If we had an earlier example of such "Friends of ..." naming, it might well supplant the "Friends of Truth" in the historical section. Failing that, the "Friends of Truth" provide an important 17th-century milestone in the use of the formula. -- Jandalhandler (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per the wise Hrafn. This isn't really an encyclopædia article, and it is unlikely ever to be one; it is a mishmash of text about wildly differing organisations which just happen to have a couple of easily-googled words in their name. Collecting them together in one place is coatrack / synth / OR at best. If a subset of them have a particular tax status which is notable (and which is shared with a much larger number of non-friends organisations), then write an article on that tax status instead. If a small subset of them are friends of museums or friends of some other specific thing such that they actually have something in common beyond the word "friends", try writing an article on those alone, if you can get them over the notability threshold for that grouping. bobrayner (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The great majority are "friends of museums or friends of some other specific thing such that they actually have something in common". Since many individual groups have had articles for a long time, it is hard to see why the general concept, with a large literature by busy fund-raising professionals, should not be. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with it? We already have thousands of separate articles on notable people whose name begins with H, but we do not have an article which tries to present a unified block of prose on People whose name begins with H, because that would be unencyclopædic. No doubt some of these friends organisations are indvidually notable; if so, write articles on them instead. If some of them actually have something significant and notable in common beyond the word "friends" which merits having a shared article, you'd better write an article on that thing, or at least tell us what it is.

If there really is "a large literature by busy fund-raising professionals" on friends-of organisations as a broad group, I'd like to see that; it would probably change my mind, and would make this subject much more notable. bobrayner (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be creating a parody by using the 'idea of people whose name begins with H' as non-encyclopaedic but ignoring the fact that we have articles such as Emily which is a far closer parallel to this situation. Fæ (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emily is a disambiguation page, NOT an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my first comment at the start of this AfD. Fæ (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "first comment at the start of this AfD" is self-contradictory WP:Complete bollocks [and lacking any factual or logical merit]. (i) A page cannot simultaneously be on a "valid specific type of organization" and be "potentially useful as a disambiguation page". (ii) As demonstrated repeatedly above, this article is not on a "valid specific type of organization", but on a grab-bag of loosely associated organisation-types (see my comment dated 10:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC), along with many similar comments to this effect). (iii) It is not a valid disambiguation page, because it is structured as an article, not as a set of disambiguation links, and so presents little utility for that purpose, nor is it clear that such a disambiguation page is needed. (Conversion to a List of Friends of organizations would appear to require less wholesale rewriting.) Whether a disambiguation page is either needed, or could be written from scratch under this title, are separate issues outside the purview of this AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate my opinion not being dismissed as complete bollocks. Just because a handful of people think the essay title you have linked to is humorous, I find your comment personal, offensive and appears intended to close down valid discussion.

It is quite common for a disambiguation page to have a lead description for the class of things being disambiguated, in some cases these descriptions are extensive and encyclopaedic. As for the purview of this AfD, I suggest you re-read the hasty nomination which claimed this article was a dictionary definition which is what should be responded to, as to the outcome of this AfD the normal options apply and if the article can be improved in the future by converting to a disambiguation page, then deletion would be heavy handed and arbitrary as an outcome as this is a normal improvement issue. --Fæ (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you do delve into the history of the thing you'll see that I left the article for an hour and a half after its creation before prodding it as so generic as being to be useless, which it undoubtedly was at that time. Rather than address the issue, the article's creator (now indef blocked as a sockpuppeteer) simply removed the prod. I waited several more hours during which time there were some desultory attempts at improvement which simply served to make it clearer that the article was a grab-bag of semi-related ideas. Hence the AfD. There's a lot more text in the article now but it's still a total mess and I see no way it can be improved. I was trying to do a rewrite myself but I've given up. This is several articles masquerading as one, glued together with a bit of SYNTH. andy (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(i) As that colloquial metaphor for nonsense is causing you conniptions, I've replaced it with "and lacking any factual or logical merit". Regardless, the meaning is the same. (ii) I notice that you have only addressed my third point -- and done so inadequately. (iii) Regardless of your claim that a disambiguation page may include "extensive and encyclopaedic" descriptions (which strikes me as questionable), the page under discussion fails to disambiguate, in that it leaves the meaning entirely ambiguous through being a grab-bag of conflicting definitions, with no attempt to clearly distinguish them, let alone provide disambiguation links to general articles on any of those individual meanings (as opposed to individual articles on 'Friends of' organisations, under the various, but unidentified, definitions). (iv) The nomination in an AfD does not place any formal limit on the discussions thereafter -- a commenter may legitimately not accept the nominator's rationale but still !vote 'delete' for a completely unrelated reason. (v) Employing Emily as a counter-example, based solely upon your own earlier assertion that the article under discussion could be turned into a disambiguation page, strikes me as a wholly unconvincing rhetorical tactic (a phrase that I would likewise tend to summarise with the aforementioned metaphor). As such I had (and have) no particular interest in your further elaborations on the subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can find something more important to spend your time on. Insulting contributors and then storming off is often considered a poor rhetorical tactic but hopefully you feel better for it. Fæ (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want your arguments dissected, then don't rub my nose in them. And having been put to the trouble of analysing their shortcomings, don't expect me to be interested in more of the same. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'll be happy to try and avoid reading your opinions in the future. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename The article needs to be renamed to be pluralized.Curb Chain (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singular titles are normally preferred. Assuming this means you think it should be kept rather than deleted, it would be useful for the closer to spell this out. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a notable general subject with several variations, probably best discussed together. Important possible uses for disambiguation and linking. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly a misguided synthesis of unrelated organizations. Yworo (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename. - "Friends of" organization (etymology). Taking the above discussion into account, WP:CIV WP:ALLARGUMENTS I attempted a reorganization and rewrite, and discovered that there is a Museums and Libraries AfD. Could we hold off on any deletion of this article for a day or two to see if that community has any input? Trilliumz (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I don't like these changes, which clearly play up to the arguments of some deletrers, though not intended to. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Still not a single WP:SECONDARY source has been shown to have in-depth coverage about this type of organization as something special. The whole article appears to be an exercise in WP:OR -- original research. It's like someone would write the article on programming language by just using various existing languages as examples, and inferring various things about them without citing any books about the topic as a whole. And I'm being kind in that comparison. This article is more like writing and article on Programming languages that begin with the letter C about C, C#, C++, and ChucK (the latter has no logical relation to the rest, but hey, it starts with C!) FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Programming languages that begin with the letter C have an international federation with members from 30 countries, and 18 national federations, and that dealing with just one industry sector? Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which federation would that be? FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Federation of Friends of Museums justifies an article for Friends of Museums, but not for Friends of whatever. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Friends of Museums/Friends of libraries/Friends of natural features - its exactly the same thing, which unfortunately the recent changes to the article have obscured. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And so are Friends of lulu according to this Wikipedia article. But still ^{[citation needed]} on a source saying they are "exactly the same thing" or even discussing them together. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The whole thing, mashing together all these various "friends of" connotations looks to me to be WP:OR, the synthesis and assertion of an aggregate relationship that likely appears nowhere else in any reliable sources. Msnicki (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Despite the rewrite, I'd like to reaffirm my prior "delete" recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a moment's work to find secondary sources which discuss the topic in a general and detailed way. For example, see Museum basics - Friend Organisations and Membership Programmes, Volunteers in museums and heritage organisations, Museum volunteers: good practice in the management of volunteers, State of Opera, &c. The claim that no such sources exist is thus shown to be quite false and so the topic should be kept in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would suggest that Colonel Warden read the prior comments before making erroneous claims as to what they state. They do not claim that secondary sources that discuss individual types of "friends of" organisations don't exist -- merely that no sources exist that tie together these disparate types and contradictory definitions into A SINGLE TOPIC. As such, this topic's conception is original research, and if Colonel Warden could be bothered to actually read our editing policy, as opposed to animatronically piping it to a single section of it, he would find that that policy actually lists OR as justification for removal. That a notable article could be created about 'Friends of Museums' organisations (e.g. at World Federation of Friends of Museums) is not under dispute -- but this is not that article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be significant editing activity at the article and such activity will naturally address such matters as the scope of the topic and the extent to which this overlaps with other articles such as support group. The sources indicate that there is much good potential here. Deletion would be disruptive to this healthy process of article development and contrary to our editing policy. The article should therefore be kept so that ordinary editing may continue. Warden (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)I would put it to Colonel Warden that the question of whether this topic's conception is fundamentally OR is a matter that needs to be settled by this AfD, and is not a matter that can simply be airily consigned with boundless (and many would say misplaced) optimism on the 'natural' consequences of editing activity, which has wholly failed to come up with anything resembling a unifying source, or even one that even eases the fundamental conflicts, to date (I would characterise his optimism as 'faith in miracles' and thus more closely related to the supernatural than the natural).

• The topic seems sufficiently large and complex that we will not able to achieve unanimity within the timeframe of an AFD. This is not a problem because Wikipedia does not have a deadline and so we are able to take as many years as needed. 99% of Wikipedia's articles are of less than good quality and there seems to be no pressing reason to focus so urgently upon this one. As we take time to comb through and inspect the numerous sources available, the disputed issues will become clearer and so resolve. This cannot happen if the article and its associated talk page is deleted and so we should follow our editing policy which expects and encourages articles to be improved over time from imperfect starts such as this. Warden (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Quit dodging the question and misrepresenting others' concerns: the problem that myself, and others, have with this topic is not that it is "large and complex", but that it is inconsistent and self-contradictory. The fact that this topic's conception is original research IS "a problem because Wikipedia" forbids original research. The problem is not lack-of-quality, but lack of cconsistency, at a fundamental level, with wikipedia's core polices -- can you claim that for "99% of Wikipedia's articles"? No? I thought not. And please leave off the fairy stories about what miracles "editing activity" will produce. And finally, WP:PRESERVE is no more the sum of "our editing policy" than WP:IMPERFECT is -- so please cease and desist piping to them as though they are. Our real editing policy states that removal of OR is justified -- a point that you've failed to address. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The claims of OR have been refuted by the citing of numerous sources which demonstrate that topic is not novel. It is one of the Five pillars that "Your efforts do not need to be perfect". The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion and it is our emphatic deletion policy that "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.. Warden (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look at the article's history and the talk page you'll see that much of the editing was the work of one noble individual who has now abandoned the effort. andy (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I take exception to this being OR. My narrowly focused pruned version was anything but a "hopeless mess"-- it is exactly what you folks in this AfD agree on as being the germane, verifiable information that corresponds to the article title. I fail to understand why that version is out of compliance with Wikipedia policies as I hear them expressed in this AfD. I also suggest you consider reading: The Friends organization: an approach to institutional stability, by Louisa Melissa Crump. Reprint, American University. 226 p., 1986 OCLC 24306603 Trilliumz (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no general agreement at this Afd that I've noticed. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your objection is without merit -- the very opening definition of the topic as "a formula that provides a common naming convention for a membership organization, support group, or community group that is dedicated to the support, promotion or protection of a particular thing such as a site, building, organization, or a more general but specialized concept" is improper WP:Synthesis, in that this claim goes well beyond what is claimed in Anheier & list, the cited source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My objection would still stand but for one fact, the short version of this article I worked up in response to your criticisms got reverted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%22Friends_of%22_organization&oldid=434515671 There are enough points of agreement between all sides in this discussion to start out with a brief piece of limited scope. We actually do have a consensus position available. Trilliumz (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, the reference was subsequently added, not by me, after that text was written, all by me except the start, which has been rewritten. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cruft and WP:OR. --Bob (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not just a crufty list, and not all of the article is contested as OR. As has been pointed out several times in this discussion, needing improvement is not a reason for deletion or a reason to create an AFD in the first place. Fæ (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "not all of the article is contested as OR". Great| Would you please delete the OR bits, so the uncontroversial non-OR material is all that remains? That would be very helpful. Thanks. andy (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact only two sentences were tagged as OR, surely by you? I've removed one as off-topic (your "brave" pal had added it), leaving only "Political action committees in the United States frequently use this form of name.[original research?]" - which is OR only in the usual WP sense of "something that isn't referenced yet, & I didn't know before". Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - A synthesis of multiple subjects that, while they may share something in their name, have no real link that warrants an article encompassing the entire subject. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:28, 17 June 2011 (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.