Deletion of People Can Change

Comment: Gosh, I think we need to be really careful that our own |POV's aren't showing here, folks.  "Pushing a homophobic agenda" is a strong accusation, WebHamster. I read the article.  It is definitely a smaller organization, but WP:ORG is okay with that if there are RS's.  WP:SPAM doesn't apply here either - it documents both the creation of the organization as well as criticisms of their impossibly controversial reason for being, but at least the article is attempting to be neutral.  I don't see any attempt at a "homophobic agenda" in the article, or in the actual organization's website, for that matter.  They seem to only want to "help" those that "want help".  That doesn't mean "homophobic" any more than me saying I want "help" for anything else I don't like about myself.  "Homophobic" groups definitely exist and should be run into the ground, but I don't see this group carrying around "God hates Fags" banners. (Please excuse my language, used only for emphasis here.)  The criticisms and missions of the organization are in the article, and from what I can tell, use reliable sources.  I say, clean up the sources, removing the numerous "people can change"  dotcom sources into a single "external link" www.peoplecanchange.com.  The others:  DesertNews is reliable/independent; gives both sides of argument and documents notability of PCC.  LifeSite.net seems neutral, independent also.  BoxTurtleBulletin, ironically, seems very POV, is completely against this organization, but is included here - IMO as an effort to show NPOV.    Again, PCC is a small organization, there aren't a lot of GHits.  But WP:ORG says that doesn't necessarily mean NN.  We don't want an encyclopedia that only has large, commercial organizations, do we
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: as , the organization is non-notable, references are all in-universe (Note: Deseret News is owned by the Mormon Church, which always defined homosexuality as evil, though now they say homosexuals can get into their heaven if and ONLY if they remain celibate for life, for which they are "rewarded" with becoming heterosexual in heaven - that is a VERY strongly non-neutral viewpoint and the newspaper coverage just reflects that), and as . I have no problem with valid articles that discuss organizations that promote a controversial viewpoint, but the articles must meet wikipedia requirements for validity, which this one fails across the board. If article is changed in timely manner to meet these (including showing non-soapbox coverage elsewhere), I would reconsider my vote. If it stays, should be noted if they take in people under 18, which would be not by will but by parents' will
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM||WP:SOAP)

Comment: From  "A topic is ''presumed'' to be notable if it has received significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources that are Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent of the subject. ... '''"Sources,"''' defined on Wikipedia as Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|secondary sources..." I don't see significant coverage in secondary sources.  Compare the sources in this article with those in Richard A. Cohen, ''he'' is demonstrably notable, whereas this organization is not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)