Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GOOOH National Committee
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 Delete - Philippe | Talk 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GOOOH National Committee
Non-notable ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ORG and WP:N, although I find the acronym pretty amusing. It's like something an anime character would shout while charging into battle. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete this article should GOOOH away (like I wasn't the first to think of this?). In all seriousness, article is grossly written from a POV, also the group does not meet WP:ORG and there aren't any other verifications. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as above per Andrew & Wildthing. Eusebeus (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The following content was added by user:Goooh at the orphaned AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GOOOH Political Action Committee:
"We believe GOOOH, a growing national movement, should remain listed. Here is further justification: - We have been on talk radio in 40+ cities (see http://www.GOOOH.com/Media.aspx) for specifics. Many of the stations are still replaying the interview and most have us schedule to return - Google GOOOH - there are dozens of sites linking to us - We have been in newspapers from Texas to New Hampshire to Washington (state). - Most importantly, we have had 60,000 visitors come to our Web site and WP: Org specifically states, “Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education... arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.”
We would not be on so many talk radio stations or having tens of thousands of visitors come to our site if we were not notable or attracting notice. Granted, we are just getting started, but with the November election getting closer, our popularity will only increase.
Thanks for your consideration."
(original statement made at 17:01, 22 February 2008, by user:Goooh; pasted in here by DS (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC) )
- Keep I see no grounds to delete based on WP:ORG, please clarify as this assertion appears groundless based on 1) multiple newspaper articles from mid-sized metropolitan areas (as shown here [1], here [2], and here [3]), 2) dozens of blog and website references (incl. one as notable as Richard Winger [4]), and 3) a published book on the process found on Amazon.com [5] and BarnesAndNoble.com [6]. Regarding the article having a POV: that is possible, but warrants a cleanup - not a deletion. --Ericwooten3 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- note to closing admin, Ericwooten3 (talk · contribs), is an WP:SPA with only six edits on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- * subnote to closing admin, I have asked Jossi (talk · contribs) to explain his WP:SPA label, as he provides no material refutation of my WP:ORG comments above, but simply points out that I have made a limited amt of edits. This is true, but in no way should it diminish the credibility of the points in my Keep vote - they must be evaluated on their own merits - which has not yet been done. I would hate to think that I was being dismissed simply because I am a neophyte. --Ericwooten3 (talk) 23:34, 25 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.
