Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCCC accomplishments

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. Good article criteria requires an article to stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details. Consensus is that this content fork is an inappropriate spinout whose subject matter could be covered in the National Civilian Community Corps if that article stayed focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details. -- Jreferee t/c 07:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCCC accomplishments

NCCC accomplishments (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A copy of National Civilian Community Corps, full of personal quotes, as well as advertising for the Corps itself. Unnecessary in the end. Jmlk17 00:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Although the number of quotes listed is extensive, they are informative, authoritative, accurately referenced. They are in almost all cases (or in every case, given the vagueness of the definition of "fair use") excerpts that qualify under "fair use" in relation to the length of the originals. They are from reputable (at a minimum) sources, referenced so their authenticity can be verified. The content of the quotations provide useful information compatible with an encyclopedia entry. The Heading "Accolades" could be deleted and subsections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 (3.1 NCCC Disaster Mitigation, Emergency Preparedness, Disaster Relief and Recovery / 3.2 NCCC Fire Fighting and Fire Mitigation / 3.3 NCCC and Environmental Conservation / 3.4 NCCC and Education) could become Level 2 sections. Given that the editor who moved all this content off the main page also added a new Criticism, the objection may not be purely confined to Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. This information is useful but I'd bet money it already appears on the NCCC site. I see part of this is already on the main NCCC site, and think that anything worthwhile can be summarized and merged into that site. Renee 02:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please Note. Below is the comment from the editor who created this page by removing this text from the main National Civilian Community Corps page, followed by a response from me, the editor who added the material. This page does begin with a repeat of some material at the National Civilian Community Corps site, followed by new and non-repetitive sections. The damning Criticisms that are posted at the National Civilian Community Corps website at Wikipedia for all the world to see are the sort of comments that, based on the information I compiled, are unwarranted and are similar to comments which have previously damaged the reputation and ultimately endangered the actual existence of a very valuable organization. I nonetheless exercised restraint in leaving them on the page in an effort not to impose my perspective unilaterally. However, balancing that characterization, and constructing a comprehensive site, requires detail. I may have erred in using typography to make the entry more readable (and to highlight geographic and programmatic scope), but which could be construed as non-objective.

    The material at this page is accurate, documented, and relevant. I agree with the previous comment, "Merge", that it should be edited (with respect and restraint) and merged back into one entry. 'Reworking OK, someone made some spectacular additions, well researched and all spot-on. The problem is, almost all of it is in need of some serious re-writing and starts to make the article too long. See What_wikipedia_is_not. I'm going to start on this- it's going to involve some deletions. Please don't take them personally, however, Wikipedia isn't meant to be a legal brief in defense of NCCC nor an advertisement in favor of it. I'm also going to transfer much of this to a new but separate article on "NCCC Accolades" that will be linked in the main article heading. --LoverOfArt 23:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)' 'Hello, Lover of Art The additions you have moved off the National Civilian Community Corps page are/were mine. Thank you, I guess, for the compliment, but I ask you to carefully consider how to evaluate whether content is germane or extraneous. The "What Wikipedia is not" page you reference starts off: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia," which links to an internal definition: "a comprehensive written compendium." As I tried to indicate, NCCC is a complex organization. I am not (nor have I ever been) an NCCC employee or contractor, but I know that it works with a wide variety of organizations, has been involved in a wide variety of activities, is responsive to local, state, regional, national priorities, and assumes considerable responsibilities. Pulling together this information in an authoritative and verifiable manner takes space. To "streamline" too much would be like asking a blindfolded person to characterize the proverbial elephant based on a touch or two. I left the Criticisms section alone. Others are free to expand on that if they choose. If more authoritative and documented positive feedback exists, so be it.

    So, please consider the broader context of unilateral decision-making. Let the Wikipedia entry for NCCC be comprehensive. Seek advice, or pause, regarding how best to tone down any material you genuinely feel is in need of that, or that you think is superfluous. And I hope you will be receptive to some give and take. And then, in my informed opinion, the pages should be merged into a single, comprehensive entry." -- Coterminous 11:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Footnotes - I realize that the Footnotes (labeled "References") to the NCCC article need work. (At least they are all current, valid links.) The question contributors like this editor ask themselves is whether continued expenditure of time is worthwhile, if the content is immediately and perpetually at risk of becoming ephemeral. But if a reasonably complete article is going to be persistently posted, details to the Footnotes can certainly be added. -- Coterminous 15:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is What The National Civilian Community Corps Page Looked Like on 7 Sept. 2007. If editors are going to be asked to comment on the material marked for potential deletion, they may want to compare it to the previous version (below). You will notice the absence of any accomplishments and the presence of a Criticisms section. The information is skewed, out of date, there are no footnotes. While it may seem that I added too much, rest assured that I had to select from (leave out) much additional positive information. If an editor wants to discuss any of the specific topics added, that is fine: Program Accomplishments, NCCC Disaster Mitigation, Emergency Preparedness, Disaster Relief and Recovery, NCCC Fire Fighting and Fire Mitigation, NCCC and Environmental Conservation, NCCC and Education, NCCC Work for People With Disabilities, NCCC and Veterans, The NCCC Experience, NCCC Photographs and Videos. Deleting all of the added content would be a disservice to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Civilian_Community_Corps&oldid=156185378 This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.172.143.124 (Talk) at 02:07, 7 September 2007. It may differ significantly from the current revision. (diff) ← Older revision | current version (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Example Of An AmeriCorps*NCCC Team- Aged 18-25 (Source: Team Eagle 2, Perry Point, MD Campus: Service Year 9, 2003) AmeriCorps*NCCC, or National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC), is an AmeriCorps program in which 18 to 24-year-olds dedicate 10 months to address national and community needs. 1,200 members are trained annually at and operate from one of three regional campuses, located in Sacramento, California, Denver, Colorado, and Perry Point, Maryland. They travel with their team throughout a multi-state region to a series of service projects, each typically lasting six to eight weeks. Projects fall in the areas of the environment, education, public safety, unmet human needs, disaster relief, and homeland security. Teams frequently work with non-profit organizations such as Habitat For Humanity and the American Red Cross, tutor students in public schools, and build trails for various national and state parks. While in the program, members receive room and board, a modest living stipend of approximately $13 a day, health coverage, and, upon successful completion of the program, a taxable education award of $4,725. Members are required to complete a minimum of 1,700 hours of service, including 80 independent service hours. As of 2006, NCCC cost $27,859 per member for each 10 month service year. $4,725 of this is accounted for via the taxable education award, with the balance going toward salaries and operating/living expenses across the four campuses and numerous project sites. History The NCCC program was loosely based on the depression era Civilian Conservation Corps, although in practice, the differences between NCCC and CCC projects were quite marked in both practical intent and outcome. The Civilian Conservation Corps focused its efforts on substantial, necessary domestic works projects (Building bridges, paving roads, constructing buildings, etc), whereas the NCCC model trends more heavily towards the "social program" archetype. The program was created in 1993 by Bill Clinton as a demonstration program charged with determining: [1] Whether federally funded residential service programs can significantly increase the support for national and community service Whether such programs can expand the opportunities for young men and women to perform meaningful, direct, and consequential acts of community service in a manner that will enhance their own skills while contributing to their understanding of civic responsibility in the United States Whether retired members of the armed forces can provide guidance and training under such programs that contribute meaningfully to the encouragement of national service Whether domestic national service programs can serve as a substitute for the traditional option of military service. While some of the primary motivations cited in the 1993 inception of AmeriCorps*NCCC changed and evolved over time, the basic focus of the program has remained the same (environment, education, public safety, unmet human needs, disaster relief, and the addition of a "homeland security" heading in 2002/3) In 2005, the Office of Management and Budget issued an assessment citing the NCCC program as being "ineffective", leading to drastic cuts in funding for the program. [2] Much of the Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 funding issued to NCCC was directly specified as being intended for hurricane relief in the Katrina impacted upper-gulf region. In 2006, The Office of Management and Budget announced the campuses in Charleston, SC and Washington, DC would be closed due to cost inefficiencies inherent to those campuses. 50% of the remaining NCCC will be deployed to the Gulf Coast to aid with Hurricane Katrina relief until at least 2010. Criticisms The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle". [1] Most notably, Libertarian pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud" [2], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years" External links Official Website This article about an organization in the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Categories: United States organization stubs | AmeriCorps organizations. -- Coterminous  (talk • contribs • logs) 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but it does need a lot of work. Merging it back into the main article is probably not the best choice due the its length. The quotes should in many cases be edited to only include the most important points with a link back to the original source for those wishing to read the entire statement. There may be some question as to the inclusion of this type of data in Wikipedia, but that is over my head and needs to be discussed and explained by those who fell it does not belong. One more point to keep in mind is that this article and its parent are the work of a very new editor. It would be wrong to delete it with out first providing guidance on how it can be improved. -- Dbiel (Talk) 20:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm the one who originally culled this from the main article and put it into an article of its own (you can see my own thoughts on this on the Americorps NCCC talk page. I vote to keep the new NCCC Accomplishments article once wikified and cleaned up, however, I wouldn't exactly cry if it were deleted. That particular entry certainly isn't appropriate for the original article. If it is appropriate at all, then it must be in the context of its own independent entry. If not, c'est la vie. I can certainly understand how huge swaths of opinion quotes could be perceived to be self-promotion and unencyclopedic. The original editor is complaining that it is "unfair" since the original article had a criticisms section, but not an accomplishments section. I really fail to see how this pertains to this discussion, as the article now has such a section. I guess the issue is "how long can we make it". If we can make the "accomplishments" section enormous (with nothing more than quotes, which tend to be "fluff" in terms of relevant fact) then wouldn't that empower someone to come along and post hundreds of quotes critical of NCCC? It's just dangerous ground, and frankly, not what wikipedia is about. As far as my adding a criticism (a single sentence) I would have it known that I am a NCCC alum, while the original editor, by their own admission, is not. If we are going to get into the whole "who is more qualified to edit" debate, I think I win that one too. -- LoverOfArt 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - (and merge back the small amount of properly sourceable material) as a classic POV fork. To make a separate article for the accomplishments, in order to remove it from the contamination of an article with the criticisms, is as improper a use of wikipedia as can easily be imagined, and a complete violation of the letter and spirit of NPOV. This is made even less defensible because the criticisms section in the main article is a mere paragraph, and the material in the new article is an extensive and uncritical accumulation of human interest testimonials mostly from the organizations own website. The editor responsible for most of this material is a SPA ip, 71.166.147.45, which resolves to Reston Virginia. The editor responsible for splitting it also has admitted COI, and an apparent atitude of WP:OWN. There have been previous edit warring over the existence and extent of material on the attempt of the present Administration to destroy this admirable program, (yes, I do have some feelings on the subject myself--but I express them by advocating a single NPOV article with content from RSs). -- DGG (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely disagree that my status as an NCCC alumni suggests COI and your assertion that I'm taking a WP:OWN position is absolutely, 100% wrong. This article is particularly susceptible to NPOV issues for a number of reasons. Given the "social program" dynamic to NCCC, there is an undeniable political component to the programs existence- ones own political philosophies will usually dictate how they feel about the program, which in turn can lead to NPOV editing on both sides of opinion. The programs existence is presently in some turbulent waters, which provides motivations for NCCC employees/partisans/interested parties to use the wikipedia article as a soapbox, which is what I believe we are seeing here (I'm sure none of us were really surprised that the domain of this particular editor resolved to the beltway)- and lastly, the sort and type of individual who tends to join NCCC as a corps member definitely trends towards the "idealist" archetype; getting NPOV additions of fact from alumni can be a bit tough, even though many of them show a lot interest in the article. I take a great deal of pride in my NPOV stance on this article and NCCC in general. I am absolutely receptive to the comments and arguments of people who say it's a waste and a boondoggle (after all- I saw plenty of NCCC waste and offensively disingenuous "environmental efforts" while I was a member) just as I'm equally receptive to the people who say it's a fantastic program that should continue (which I happen to agree with). I take a very active interest in this article, however, I absolutely don't claim some sort of dominion over it. What I do claim is direct, first hand understanding of the program, and my own individual POV is probably a helluva lot more neutral than 90% of my fellow alumni and my own understanding and concept of the program is a lot more valid than someone who has never participated --LoverOfArt 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Re: "RSs - This presumably refers to Reliable Sources. Quotes with verifiable links may present difficulties for the Wikipedia guidelines, but they at least have this advantage: they can be used to evaluate the source of that information -- not the editor who posted it; rather, the qualifications of the original source -- and whether or not material should be accorded weight. You write that "the material in the new article is an extensive and uncritical accumulation of human interest testimonials mostly from the organizations own website." I want to provide one example to show just how incorrect that description is. One of the newly added quotes is: In Sept. 2007, an editorial about NCCC by the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper, the Sun Herald, stated: "Among the many who wear the name "hero" in our book of golden deeds performed here, the Americorps volunteers will forever have a place of honor in our memory - idealistic young people, and seniors also, who came here and lived in Spartan conditions for month after month, in military tents, going out day after day to help the people of South Mississippi pull themselves out of the debris and rebuild."[8] http://www.sunherald.com/editorials/story/141099.html I could have -- perhaps should have, except for concerns about violating "fair use" -- included this quote from that Sun Herald editorial: " .... the thousands of Americorps volunteers who quickly came to the aid of South Mississippi following Katrina were among the very best representatives of our federal government, living proof of tax dollars that were effectively and efficiently expended in the behalf of a shattered region." http://www.sunherald.com/editorials/story/141099.html The Sun Herald, in Biloxi, Mississippi, shared the Pulitzer Prize (for public service) in 2006, ""For its valorous and comprehensive coverage of Hurricane Katrina, providing a lifeline for devastated readers, in print and online, during their time of greatest need." Now, if this paper and its editorial board, who must know more about this than any Wikipedia editor, would print that editorial, Wikipedia editors might then consider whether obliterating references on the NCCC page to accounts of NCCC's effectiveness, while retaining statements that NCCC is "ineffective" represents objective editing or something entirely different. It doesn't seem to make much sense to conclude that the Sun Herald would write that editorial if it saw evidence that NCCC was a "boondoggle" or a "waste and a fraud," as quoted at the main Wikipedia NCCC site for years. So perhaps this discussion can try to focus less on the suspected or apparent motivations of contributing editors and more on how to facilitate a responsible and comprehensively revised and balanced entry for this organization, and thereby remedy the evident ill-advised skewed POV of the existing content.Coterminous 15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • From an "SPA" but nonetheless a "RS" The quotes I have added have been called fluff. Editors may want to note that as Commanders of their State National Guard (which have been stretched thin by overseas deployments), state Governors have been concerned about capacity to meet domestic crises. I included a quote from the Governor of California -- a letter to the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security -- attesting to NCCC's outstanding disaster relief work. (SEE: http://www.voicesforservice.org/articles/SchwarzeneggerFY07.pdf) Not fluff. To avoid partisanship, I included a letter from a California Congressperson of a different political party (and from Senators of both parties). Here is some more NOT FLUFF: An excerpt from a document newly posted on the web, a letter to Congress from the Director of Recovery, St. Bernard's Parish (New Orleans). The author is a former Marine Colonel who writes to "acknowledge the monumental accomplishments of the AmeriCorps NCCC team members which have supported our recovery efforts." This is documented evidence of extremely effective work in response to one of the worst national disasters in U.S. history. If Wikipedia can find room to broadcast the opinion that NCCC is a "fraud," it should be able to make room for a reference to this: April 26, 2006 The Honorable Tom Harkin, Ranking Member Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, And Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington DC 20510 Dear Senator Harkin: As the Director of Recovery for St. Bernard Parish, I wish to acknowledge the monumental accomplishments of the AmeriCorps NCCC team members which have supported our recovery efforts. Let me preface my comments with the fact that I have no previous affiliations with the organization prior to their assignment to the Parish. ... AmeriCorps NCCC rapidly identified, developed and implemented an Operations Command Center that coordinated all aspects of the mission. They developed tracking boards which identified all of the Rights of Entry available for use within the 33 debris zones of the Parish. They assigned specific volunteer teams to each structure. They coordinated the movement of personnel to the different zones of operation, as well as the placement of essential tools required for the accomplishment of the tasks.... They provided the necessary safety staff to oversee the operations and ensure not only the safety of the volunteers within the Parish, but the continuity of the services provided to the citizens. They implemented a training program which resulted in identifiable and measurable reduction of hazardous material in our debris stream as well as a reduction in physical accidents resulting in treatment by a physician. In addition, they implemented a process by which each of the residents received advance notification to facilitate operations and encourage local participation in the processes. For the record, over 1200 homes have benefited from this process which is being commanded and controlled nearly exclusively by AmeriCorps NCCC team members. Their leadership enabled us to effectively engage thousands of volunteers. The Parish would not have been able to accomplish this task but for the efforts of these personnel. They have been a force multiplier of expediential proportions. As a Colonel (sel) in the United States Marine Corps, I have recently served on both a Marine Expeditionary Force and Division Staff in Iraq. The competence, dedication, and capabilities of these young American citizens compares to that of the Marines I have had the distinct honor of serving with. The command and control processes, procedures implemented in the ever-changing environment in which AmeriCorps NCCC has operated, has been exemplary. ... Respectfully, David Dysart Director of Recovery St. Bernard Parish / Online at http://www.americorpsalums.org/?page=TANCCC Accessed October 1, 2007 (emphasis added) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 15:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Criticisms Section of National Civilian Community Corps entry Not Substantiated by the Footnotes Provided The Criticisms Section reads: Criticisms The NCCC program has met with sharp criticisms from some fiscal conservatives who accused it of being a "boondoggle".[4] Most notably, Libertarian pundit and commentator James Bovard has been one of the most vocal Americorps NCCC opponents, calling it a "waste and fraud"[5], in addition to dedicating an entire chapter of criticisms of the program in his book "Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years." Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it "a fraud". 4) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188385,00.html 5) http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000americorps.htm Footnote 5, the supposed source of comments that label NCCC a waste and fraud, nowhere mentions NCCC or the National Civilian Community Corps or AmeriCorps NCCC. The article is about AmeriCorps in general - not the same thing. NCCC consists of about 1200 corps members per year. AmeriCorps is a large umbrella covering the following: (See http://www.americorps.org/about/ac/index.asp ) "AmeriCorps is a network of local, state, and national service programs that connects more than 70,000 Americans each year in intensive service to meet our country’s critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the environment. AmeriCorps is made up of three programs: AmeriCorps*State and National, AmeriCorps*VISTA, and AmeriCorps*NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps). AmeriCorps*State and National: AmeriCorps*State and National supports a broad range of local service programs that engage thousands of Americans in intensive service to meet critical community needs. Learn more about AmeriCorps*State Learn more about AmeriCorps*National AmeriCorps*VISTA: AmeriCorps*VISTA provides full-time members to community organizations and public agencies to create and expand programs that build capacity and ultimately bring low-income individuals and communities out of poverty. Learn more about AmeriCorps*VISTA. AmeriCorps*NCCC: The AmeriCorps*National Civilian Community Corps is a full-time residential program for men and women, ages 18-24, that strengthens communities while developing leaders through direct, team-based national and community service. Learn more about AmeriCorps*NCCC." In addition, the comment of NCCC that "Robert Sweet, the former director of the National Institute of Education, labeled it 'a fraud'." is unsupported by any footnote at all. These are flimsy reeds to support this level of comment about the National Civilian Community Corps, a highly regarded organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coterminous (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the quotes could be concentrated and worked into a more-encyclopedic narrative. They started out as a separate section, ""Accolades,"" meant to balance the Criticism section. A collegial effort to rework this would be fine. Instead, the positive material was removed and marked for deletion. A number of comments have been made during this process to the effect that the quotes added are "fluff," or superfluous, etc. Until this month, NCCC was characterized at Wikipedia - a guaranteed quick hit on Google - by quotes calling it "ineffective," a "boondoggle," a "waste and a fraud." Accomplishments, praise: nonexistent. This sort of incomplete and misleading information can have serious and destructive consequences. There is a great deal of meat on the quotes newly posted, from a variety of senior officials and elected officials, which runs directly counter to the image portrayed by the pre-existing Wikipedia entry. A few quick examples: The highly respected former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, James Lee Witt, wrote that "members of AmeriCorps (part of the National Civilian Community Corps, or NCCC) have responded to every national disaster since its inception in 1994. As director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from 1993 to 2001, I saw firsthand how the young men and women of the NCCC helped to rebuild communities and lives. What made the NCCC critical to our disaster response is that it provided us with disastertrained and certified volunteers who could be mobilized at a moment’s notice." A 2006 letter to the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, signed by fifty-two U.S. Representatives, stated in part: ..."Americorps*NCCC members are 100% disaster trained and available for immediate deployment in the event of a natural disaster anywhere within the United States. Trained in CPR, first aid, disaster response, and firefighting, NCCC teams have responded to every national disaster since the program was established." In Sept. 2007, an editorial about NCCC by the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper, the Sun Herald, stated: "Among the many who wear the name "hero" in our book of golden deeds performed here, the Americorps volunteers will forever have a place of honor in our memory - idealistic young people, and seniors also, who came here and lived in Spartan conditions for month after month, in military tents, going out day after day to help the people of South Mississippi pull themselves out of the debris and rebuild." "Habitat for Humanity has participated in the NCCC since 1994, and the members of the NCCC have been instrumental in working towards Habitat for Humanity’s goal of eliminating poverty housing across the United States. Over 5,100 NCCC members have participated in more than 500 individual Habitat for Humanity service projects, and they have served with 142 Habitat chapters in 43 states." I welcome good-faith efforts to update the content and incorporate historically valid sources of information about topics like NCCC disaster relief work, etc. in search of a fair, comprehensive entry that, frankly, is long overdue.Coterminous 17:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the NCCC is, of course, highly notable, but then partly because of their accomplishments. It makes no sense to make a separate article on this. Merge back "an encyclopedic part" of it. Greswik 20:38, 3 October 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.