Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Most of the sources are first-person, or contain very little mention of the organization. A week ago, I asked the person contesting the deletion for specific sources as proof, but there was no response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autistic_Women_%26_Nonbinary_Network

Additionally, most internet searches lead to first-person sources or very brief mentions of this organization. Yleventa2 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, Nebraska, and Washington, D.C.. Yleventa2 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As someone who is autistic, I was hoping that the organization was notable. Google searches and Newspapers.com revealed very minor mentions. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shouldn't have been undeleted after the prod. A complete waste of everybodies time. scope_creep^Talk 21:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject verifiably fails the criteria for inclusion. The sources appear to be impressive in number but, on closer inspection, are shown up as lacking in substance and only testifying as to the corporation's existence: There's a number of routine, catalogue listings (e.g. here in the Candid information service; here in the Nebraska State Corporate & Business website; here in the IRS (!) site; and so on); a citation of the corporation's own website; reports, such as this, this, and this, about issues of autism but not about the corporation; and so on. Much as one would love to see one more article about something of benefit to autistic persons, this does not withstand scrutiny. Here's hoping that, in the future, they do more and become more notable for it. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2022 (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.