Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blueprint for American Prosperity

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 speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11: "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.". This does not preclude a neutral editor writing a neutral, third-party-sourced article on the subject. Sandstein (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blueprint for American Prosperity

Blueprint for American Prosperity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete as per WP:OR -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • comment This does appear to be original research, written by someone maybe a little to close to the subject matter, however, we should give them a chance to provide some references to establish notability and factual accuracy instead of going right for the delete. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There seem to be sources about it; the Post-Gazette has one, and so does the this. There were a few more but they were unavailable on their host sites, unfortunately. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The information provided is accurate and by no means false. The citations used send the reader to credible sources. I am unclear as to why this would be deleted- can you explain the sentiment? The Blueprint Program was released to the public in November. If anything a Wiki contributor should have already created this page. Alexbrookings 11:55, 29 January 2008
    • Delete First paragraph is a copyvio of [1]. the rest certainly reads like a copyvio of other things on their site or published by them. The comment above seems to say they added it themselves after discovering that nobody with a lack of COI had added it for them--and, if you look in the contrib history, alexbrookings seems to have done just that. If it is notable, someone will write a proper article. DGG (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • comment The accuracy of your information is not what is being questioned, it is the notability of the subject matter. All the references you provided are from the Brookings Institute itself, not from secondary sources as required by Wikipedia's notability guidlines. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:45, 1 February 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.