Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Horowitz Freedom Center

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 keep. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Horowitz Freedom Center

David Horowitz Freedom Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable organization - has no sources outside itself. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
NOTE: The above Template is wrong and perhaps should be removed. According to policy, these decisions are made according to consensus, which does have a lot to do with numbers. A minority cannot form a "consensus", except in an oligarchy. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: I am commenting on the procedure here, as is my right. PLEASE DO NOT CENSOR MY COMMENTS HERE AGAIN. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikitionary: "Censorship: the use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated." Not the case here. I removed a comment based on my right in an open source forum to do so, and based on my experiences with wikipedia and the cautionary use of the above template. Nothing more. You replaced your comment, which again is your right to do so. As the comment below points out, the template wording may have changed. I was reacting to what I thought was an unnecessary addition/comment to the template which seeks to remind all users that this isn't a poll. You see it a different way. That's fine, and I won't remove your comment this time around. But let's keep things in perspective when it comes to rights on this forum. Freshacconci 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You have, unless blocked, an ability to remove comments. Temporarily. Subject to 3RR. Wiktionary: "censor ... Verb: to censor ... 2. (transitive) To remove objectionable content".[1] You did remove it [2], apparently because it was objectionable, to you, so Codex Sinaiticus is right that he was censored. From where did you acquire a right to be so discourteous? Andyvphil 14:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Andy but I doubt it is worth pursuing, and I don't want to keep any grudges or hard feelings. In fact I can see how this thread is distracting from the actual AFD, so if anyone else would want to move the whole thing to the discussion page, go ahead, that would be fine with me. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trolling for another fight, but I thought you should get some support. Being right is better when you get some validation. Anyway, as an gesture promoting AGF, I've asked chimneybrown (Cbrown1023), the admin who deleted DTN over my objections, to look at this AfD with a view to closing it. It's turned into such a rout that the gesture has been somewhat devalued, but better late than never. I think that'll put everything on the Discussion page. Andyvphil 23:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, what that template does is invite the closing admin to IGNORE the consensus majority and susbstitute his own whim, since clearly there are two different opinions here as to whether or not this is notable; it will come down to only one person's opinion. This makes everything below to establish consensus meaningless. I vehemently object to that template. If you are going to gag my speech here, remove the template also. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Did the template change? I thought it used to say "This is not a vote", when did the word majority get added? That seems to be the problem no? L0b0t 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:DEL#Background "Finally, it's worth noting that (as with all Wikipedia consensus decisions) the purpose of a discussion is to bring out a "sense of the community" and the valid points for or against each view. So deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing." Don't get excited. We've got both the "votes" AND the arguments. And we win no-decisions. WP:DEL#Renominations_and_recurring_candidates "If in doubt, don't delete." Andyvphil 14:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
.
.
.
.
  • Weak Keep - external links to other sites constitute evidence of independent coverage, but I'm not sure whether this coverage counts as "non-trivial". More sources needed, ideally. Walton monarchist89 11:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be attack David Horowitz day, First AfD on Common Dreams, then FrontPage Magazine now this. Is it delete Liberal media week? Anyway to the argument, outside source about the Freedom Center, [3] quite biased, but should work. Story about the Freedom Center backed incident in Pennsylvania [4]. State Police Network run down of the Freedom Center [5]. AFT article criticizing Freedom Center's funding [6]. TuscanNews article [7]. --NuclearZer0 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote to Strong Keep provided the above sources are added to the article. Walton monarchist89 12:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Be WP:bold. Do it. Andyvphil 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I will add them this weekend if the result is keep. I am just stuck at work and looked that up before I left. I am sure there is plenty more to add considering that is the result of 5 minutes. --NuclearZer0 15:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Should be a keep unless an unreasonable admin does a drive-by delete. My first AfD was DTN, and an admin did just that: no explanation of why he thought there was a consensus, no cleanup of the dead links, no retention of history so that material could be merged... Left a bad taste, and me less willing to AGF in the face of evidence to the contrary. Hipocrite's nomination is typical of what he's been doing. No effort involved on his part, just involves everone else in a lot of wasted effort dealing with his messes. He's not the only one. On the other ideological side Common Dreams AfD was an more-than-equal waste of time. Andyvphil 13:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable, links supplied so far are trivial/fluff/nonnotable themselves. Recommend delete. - Denny 14:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep Absurd nomination. Andyvphil 15:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy keep Bad faith nom. This is notable and encyclopedic. Note that nom. has also taken it upon himself to trawl the wiki mass-deleting all citations to this site wheresoever they may appear, declaring them "unreliable". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Hey, I don't like the guy, but so what? Wikipedia is supposed to be an apolitical encyclopedia, and the Center itself is notable. Neutral information is necessary, especially with politically charged topics and institutions. I would like to see some more neutral sources, but as it stands, this is notable. (And no, I'm not a neocon pretending to be liberal, I am a liberal/social democrat who believes this sort of attempt to "delete" the enemy is harmful for all). Freshacconci 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, heh, for the most extreme example of the tactic you are describing, check out the 2 Stalin pics in damnatio memoriae! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That seemed to happen a lot under Stalin... Freshacconci 17:16, 9 February 2007(UTC)
Change to Merge with David Horowitz. My comments still stand. Freshacconci 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - notable organisation, with many references available. -- Whpq 17:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep at best. the work seems notable, but just barely. an online magazine and blog? 800,000 pamphlets? if it wasn't horowitz writing this stuff, it wouldn't be notable at all as just another blog/webzine/one photocopier based organization. Cornell Rockey 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merits a mention at David Horowitz, perhaps, but not enough independent sources to make it notable on its own. Besides, it's a win-win - Horowitz can claim he's being censored on Wikipedia at his next fund-raiser. Charles Kinbote 18:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. You've almost convinced me with that last point!. Freshacconci 18:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nominator appears to have a personal issue with Horowitz, has been removing every reference to him or his work he can find on Wikipedia. Man and org are notable. - Crockspot 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks multiple independent reliable sources, so fails WP:N and WP:RS. Put a paragraph or 2 about it in article on Horowitz. Inkpaduta 19:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because I hate freedom lacks enough independent reliable sources for its own article; mention the org at David Horowitz per Inkpaduta above. MastCell 00:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Inkpaduta. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete - The following is the entire amount of information I was able to find about the Center from WP:RS - The Center for the Study of Popular Culture was renamed the David Horowitz Freedom Center in July 2006 and publishes the online magazine Front Page. The David Horowitz Freedom Center subsequently merged with the Liberty Film Festival in August 2006. They had a capacity crowd, "Restoration Weekend" event in Palm Beach, Fla. in November 2006 and honored Medal of Honor winner Leo Thorsness at a gathering in South Florida in November 2006. With so little WP:RS information, the topic fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:N. The Center information is better suited for the David Horowitz article rather than having its own article. -- Jreferee 17:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC) I did an additional search on the Center for the Study of Popular Culture that revealed more information about the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Since the David Horowitz Freedom Center topic has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic, David Horowitz Freedom Center meets WP:N. -- Jreferee 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Please see the sources above, I just havent had time to add them, they are all WP:RS sources. Please read the other comments before casting yuor vote in the future. Also WP:RS includes their own site which you seem to have ignored any information coming from them. A source is WP:RS for itself. --NuclearZer0 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Since it seems we are now being encouraged to continue the argument here rather than simply demonstrate a consensus, let me address the RS question here. The people who claim that DHFC is not a reliable source (for itself, or anything else) have yet to provide even ONE instance where information on that site has proved to be unreliable or erroneous. They provide their sources and footnotes for all their information better than wikipedia does, and every statement they have made so far has indeed been corroborated as far as I know. Claiming it is "uncorroborated" etc. is a merely part of a non-neutral political ploy designed to tilt the balance of wikipedia in general over to one side. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • merge to David Horowitz. Tom Harrison Talk 21:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - notable organisation, with many references available. Biophys 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable organization.Bakaman 23:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable and can be referenced well. Also it should not be merged with David Horovitz. Then it would be impossible to categorize it properly, and besides the article is large enough. Colchicum 23:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangerous-Boy (talk • contribs)
  • keep, reluctantly it is notable--very notable, but for the worst of reasons, and the article is unbelievable POV. There is information to be added, and it will be. The publications and press releases of this organization has in turn been used as a RS for a number of other questioned WP articles.--currently being discussed on WP:RS. The practice of saying something is NN as a way of indicating disapproval of it amounts to political censorship. It could, of course, be reasonably argued that this is appropriate for an organization whose entire purpose is political censorship--but that is not fair. Proper editing s what will be fair.DGG 06:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP, bad faith nomination, I would also suggest a block for User:Hipocrite as they have been abusing the AfD process and trying to censor articles that don't meet their liberal mooncalf vision of how the world should work. L0b0t 15:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP -- and an an obvious one at that. It's a very notable organization. -- Randy2063 17:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to David Horowitz as it is NN outside of him or Delete. --Tbeatty 20:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
judging the opinion here should discount the opinions of those who could give no reason. This is a discussion, not a poll. DGG 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge : What isn't OR, Non RS V, or POV into David Horowitz. - FAAFA 00:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and don't merge. Very notable organization. Way too much subject specific information here to merge to the already very long David Horowitz article. I don't even like the organization, but that's no reason at all to delete an article about it. --Oakshade 03:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as an apparently notable organization. We should not need to like something in order to cover it on Wikipedia. Note: for some reason, the username of the person who initiated this discussion appears as "??? (???)" on my screen, if that can be fixed. (jarbarf) 19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't initiate the discussion, User:Hipocrite did, but that now appears underneath my comment about the Template. And yes, there is only one way the ??? can be "fixed". All you have to do is put the correct font, gfzemen.ttf, into your font folder, if you want to see what it is supposed to look like. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I was mistaken. What font is gfzemen.ttf? I will try to locate it. (jarbarf) 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
My fault. I've relocated the template. I think this is the first AfD I've seen when it wasn't on the page, so I added it. The [expletive deleted] hasn't come back after his shit-disturbance, but some editors have actually changed their minds, which gives one hope for the process. Andyvphil 00:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems there's a concerted effort being made to have all articles related to anything David Horowitz ever touched or breathed on merged into his bio article. Why? To consolidate it preparatory to an AfD for that, too, and *poof* he's gone? Sorry, but the real world doesn't work that way and neither does Wikipedia. I've said it before and I'll say it again, partisan articles are best left to be AfD'd by those on the same side, not the opposing side. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable - see URLs provided by NuclearUmpf, ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above Elizmr 13:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above - notability has been established, TewfikTalk 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, passes Wikipedia:Notability standards. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable organization, and NuclearUmpf has provided more third-party sources about it above. Beit Or 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable organisation and google shows thisSlideAndSlip 21:36, 13 February 2007 (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.