Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACORN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is quite clearly nothing more than a piece of PR propaganda for the organization. I mean, for fuck's sake..."The 80s proved to be a time when the political elite in America was less concerned with the needs of low-and moderate-income people than ever." WTF?

Anyway, I'm not sure it necessarily needs to be deleted--it may still be salvageable--but it was suggested in #wikipedia that listing it here is the only way to get any decent amount of attention brought to it.

Kurt Weber 04:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep: If its claim of having over 160,000 families registered, it's surely deserving of an article. I say send it to cleanup to get increased attention. -Frazzydee 04:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely notable. Send to Cleanup for POV-ectomy. Kevyn 05:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to cleanup. Not promotional as such. One-sided, biassed, but legitimate, well-written description of a notable organization. POV as such is cause for editing and balance, not for deletion. If the nominator is knowledgable, he could begin the process by adding a section entitled "Criticisms" or something of the sort, explaining why the organization is really... whatever he thinks it is. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) P. S. In response to the sentence "This is quite clearly nothing more than a piece of PR propaganda for the organization" my response would be "this is quite clearly something more than a piece of PR propaganda, although it clearly does contain some PR propaganda." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:45, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Send to clean up. ACORN is pretty significant and active, but a clean up is needed. Geogre 13:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Don't nominate for VfD because you don't like an organization's politics. Geogre 16:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't. Read above for why I nominated it here.Kurt Weber 17:47, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A perfectly legitimate topic. Gwalla | Talk 01:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I removed the vfd, as it did not meet vfd guidelines. If this is incorrect etiquette, please let me know. --LegCircus 15:49, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • It is. Once an item is listed, it should stay. Usually, no one will object if the nominator removes the VfD tag in a landslide vote. No one else should, and, honestly, the nominator shouldn't, either. Let the 5 days go by. The tag will do no harm, and we won't forget to assess the votes properly. Meanwhile, Clean Up really should work on it. Geogre 18:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs some NPOVing to be more encyclopedic but is a perfectly valid topic for an article. This listing is absurd and quite clearly politically motivated, which is a waste of everyone's time. If an article needs some work this is not the way to draw attention to it. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • For the umpteenth time: No, it's not politically motivated. If you'd actually read what I wrote above, you'll find out why I submitted it.
      • I have read what you wrote above, and I have also read your user page, on which you admit to holding extreme right-wing views. If you wanted this article NPOVing you could have done it yourself, or brought it to people's attention in the usual way, but instead you tried to have it expunged from Wikipedia. No doubt this was your way of opening up a new front in the battle for, as you put it, "the entire destruction of socialism and collectivism." — Trilobite (Talk) 08:06, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • 1) No, I do not hold "extreme right-wing views", and I have no clue what gave you that idea. My ideology is very much NOT right-wing. 2) Your assertion notwithstanding, several people suggested to me that the only way to get attention brought to it to help clean it up was to list it on VfD, and following their suggestion, I did. I do not necessarily want it deleted (and if you actually did read what I wrote you will see I said as much). Grow up.Kurt Weber 18:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I regret not knowing the etiquette, but I must say I disagree with it. There have been no delete votes (even the user who called the vote won't vote for deletion). There was no proper justification for the tag in the first place, and if we agree that VfD should not be used to draw attentiont to the page, then why do we reward those who would use it thus? Once again let me apologize for being new. I welcome comments at User talk:LegCircusLegCircus 02:52, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
You may have a point here. If someone put a VfD tag on a big article like George W. Bush (for example) it would be removed immediately, and there wouldn't be a five day debate on the matter. I don't think you need to worry about anyone being rewarded for misuse of VfD though. A string of "keep" votes shows the community's disapproval. The VfD banner will disappear from the article in a few days and then the important work of NPOVing can begin. It can begin now actually, as there is no rule about not editing pages while they're being voted on. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Not that you need another vote, but Keep. Needs a POV-ectomy, but it's definitely a notable organization. Antandrus 03:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Hold (slow-down?) This page contains potential copyright violations which need to be resolved first. I asked the submitter to clarify. Rmhermen 13:29, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment I am the submitter and primary contributer to the page. There is no copyright problem. If I need to clarify further I will. Otherwise I will prepare for the next assault on my innocent little article. --LegCircus 15:34, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep, now that copyright is resolved. Anyone know the preferred method for indicating this in the article? Rmhermen 16:16, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
        • It's best on the talk page rather than in the article. My suggestion: "This article incorporates material from As the copyright holder I agree to license it under the GFDL. ~~~~" (signed by LegCircus of course). — Trilobite (Talk) 16:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, these people have managed to annoy me, so they must be notable.
  • Keep. Why should the article be censored? Why not help to edit it to present a more NPOV if you find that it is so biased? --DV 08:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)