Deletion of Sexual Compulsives Anonymous

Comment: per nom.  This is |not a notable organization, and has a |has a one-sided point of view.  As others have noted, this is a  article with a |single source independent of the group and |few possible sources readily available from an Internet search.  I don't think it can be fixed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:POV||WP:COATRACK||WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: While it doesn't make their threats any less dangerous, it is worth remembering that the people making most of the recent edits are |newcomers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)

Comment: Providing the article is extensively rewritten, or reverted, to make it into a |neutral article rather than something that looks more like a SCA brochure, per  and , before the AfD period is up. Also providing someone can find or provide |independent reliable sources, such as mainstream newspaper or news magazine articles or academic journal articles, or independent books, to establish |notability. Although I have heard of SCA for some time and strongly suspect that it is notable and deserves an article, I haven't found reliable sources that support that.  Some of the past inappropriate language and uncivil comments are very troubling, otherwise I would be arguing harder to keep the article. The only reason I !voted conditional keep, is that I believe in improving articles rather than deleting them. In response to another comment, this AfD has absolutely nothing to do with homophobia, and I'm an editor who has a good record defending LGBT related articles. Nor is it a right wing attack. I reluctantly but essentially agree with most of Wooty's rationale. Bottom line: If the article is not cleaned up and RS not found, then '''Delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:COI||WP:POV||WP:RS||WP:NOTE)