Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Consumer Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 12:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Consumer Institute

American Consumer Institute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Speedied 3 times. This seems like a non-notable think tank. There are google hits because they issue press releases, but I can't seem to find any coverage independent of them. 4th speedy was apparently declined. Also, article was created by chairman of the board. SmashvilleBONK! 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - there's a lot of press releases to be found, but I am unable to find and reliable sources that are about the ACI. Additionally, the article has severe conflict of interest issues. After I noted that neutral editors needed to be involved, two new accounts magically appeared to edit the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete- I agree with one of the earlier comments, the comparison between this group and other groups should be edited out, because it is difficult to verify and source.

On the other hand, I think it is otherwise accurate. I am a student at UVA and did a project on this and looked into a few of these nonprofit consumer groups-- CFA, CU, etc. That is why I added the news clip from FOX TV on this group yesterday and I believe I saw one from ABC, as well as some news clips. I can add these, when I return to school in a couple of next weeks, if the page is still available, which will address the issue of notability.

One thing troubles me, though. If you do not leave the page up for more than one day, how would you expect their to be more contributors to it? And then, the lack of contributors becomes a reason for deletion? By the way, the group's "name" was mentioned on other wiki pages for quite some time (a year?), but now it's been edited out altogether without any reason given. It seems like there is more than careful gatekeeping going on here ... --Wahoo4u (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)— Wahoo4u (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Reply - The AFD process takes place over 5 days. So that page will remain up during that period of time. Editors are free to improve the article while the article is under discussion. At issue here is notability, and specifically reliable sources about the organisation. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The group's name was added to other Wikipedia pages yesterday when the articles were created, not a year ago. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, the source added was not about this organization, it's about printer refills...they basically reported on a press release. My other question is - why would you have to wait a couple of weeks before you go back to school to post this source you've found instead of posting it now when you clearly have access to a computer? --SmashvilleBONK! 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This, again?! Delete; utter spam to promote a non-notable think-thank. — Coren (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - non-notable, properly speedied in the past. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: Do Not Delete- The reason why I would prefer to wait is because wikipedia does no run my life (ummm). But, since you asked, I will reply. First, any reasonable search would find numerous cites about this group (see below). Second, the reason you find many news releases from this group is because they are announcing their studies. Yes, they appear to do real research. Third, the reason why one news clip talked about computer printer ink cartridges is because they did a 50-page policy paper on the issue. So, here is the information.

Do with it what you want.

  • Listed as a consumer group in October 2005 by ConsumerWorld:

http://www.consumerworld.org/pages/agencies.htm

  • Listed as consumer group by a consumer advise website:

http://www.expert-credit-advice.com/consumer_help_links.htm

  • Here is a peered reviewed study on the New York Law School’s web site for the Journal (the citation is Media Law and Policy vol.16 no.2 pp.122-64.) The studies author’s Dr. Darby (a former FCC bureau chief) and Professor Fuhr are both with ACI. See:

http://www.nyls.edu/Include/Media%20Law%20and%20Policy/Vol%2016,%20No%202%20Darby%20Article.pdf

  • ACI study cited by the U.S. Department of Justice in one of its filings

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/comments/223443.htm

  • Department of Justice refers to ACI as an advocacy group

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/workshops/telecom2007/submissions/228064.htm

  • U.S. Justice Department discusses ACI study in fn. 25.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/comments/225767.htm

  • Seattle Times reporter discusses an ACI study

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/techtracks/archives/2007/08/

  • Answers.com lists ACI as a reference to information on the U.S. Economy

http://www.answers.com/topic/economy-of-the-united-states

  • The Wall Street Journal has several citings

http://wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/06sep/htop_netneutrality.htm

  • The Madison State Journal (the Wiscosin city’s newspaper) cites ACI’s research

http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/index.php?ntid=257581

  • Congressman Larson cites an ACI study

http://www.house.gov/larson/aestfsupporters.htm

  • Some Organizations citing ACI’s work:

http://reason.org a DC think-tank http://www.reason.org/outofcontrol/archives/telecom/

  • NextGenWeb has an ACI paper on its site

http://www.nextgenweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/aci-green-bb-benefits.pdf

  • NextGenWeb has a video (on UTube) on ACI’s presentation at the National Press Club

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gVy7U--G57k

  • A major foundation, the Markle Institute, has a reprint of our work

http://www.markle.org/weekly_digest/weeklydigest_vol.5_issue11.pdf

  • InternetInnovation.org

http://www.internetinnovation.org/Editor/News/tabid/56/articleType/CategoryView/categoryId/8/NewsNews-Archives.aspx

  • The U.S. Internet and Industry Association

http://www.usiia.org/pubs/Demand.pdf

  • The Wisconsin Public Policy Institute cites one of our studies at

http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume%2020/Vol20No4/Vol20no4.pdf

  • The Truman School of Public Policy at University of Missouri has one of ACI’s PowerPoint presentations at

http://truman.missouri.edu/ipp/telecom/documents/pociask.pdf

  • ACI research cited at the Heartland Institute, a major U.S. think tank

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18540

  • The Communications Workers of America Cites ACI’s work at”

http://www.cwa4340.org/legislative/SupportSB117.pdf

  • Fox news cites ACI’s (Professor Darby’s) research at

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200497,00.html

Dr. Bowe at Hofstra University cites ACI study at

http://people.hofstra.edu/frank_g_bowe/videocompetition.html

  • Head (?) of ACI – op-ed in Washington Times

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070902/COMMENTARY/109020022/1012

  • New Jersey ratepayer advocates cite aci study (at fn. 15) in filing with the FCC

http://www.state.nj.us/rpa/06-74comments.pdf

There are much much more… just look --Wahoo4u (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Would you care to disclose any affiliation you have with ACI? -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought you were a student at UVA...what is this "our" stuff? Also...you can't vote twice...you can make all the comments you want, but you can't vote twice. None of the things you provided are reliable secondary sources about the subject. Reprints of material and so forth. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep seems notable, regardless of COI; being widely cited by reputable news sources can amount to notability. Obviously needs a significant rewrite, but thats another matter. DGG (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG, I agree that there may be some conflicts of interest at hand but we still need an article about the American Consumer Institute given its apparent notability. RFerreira (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. John254 02:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
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.