Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Against Censorship

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 consensus. —Ocatecir ^Talk 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People Against Censorship

People Against Censorship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Speedied twice by me as lacking a claim of notability (and blatant self-promotion), but undeletion requested. The group was set up by two people, one of whom reposted the article after the first speedy, to campaign against the sacking of Don Imus. Virtually all edits are by single-purpose accounts. Don't be misled by the title, this is not a group against censorship, it's the Dan Imus fan club. They got an interview or two, but then I've been interviewed on national radio several times and I know it means nothing. In the end this article is astroturfing, it was created by the subjects in order to promote their cause, there is no credible evidence of significance and no evidence of non-trivial independent coverage either. The group's website is 404, which may explain why they suddenly and urgently need their Wikipedia article back. Oh, and the group should realy be called "people against the sacking of bigots". Guy (Help!) 12:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Disagreement of an editor (or an admin) with subject matter is not a valid reason for deletion. In addition, the nominator should review WP:SPA (merely an essay) and WP:COI (guideline) carefully, they do not allow for speedy deletion. The article contains references to verifiable media sources which indicate notability. The tone of the article is slightly leaning on the side of advertorial, but this can easily be remedied by an editor. I also suggest the references integrated into the main article. In summary, the subject matter is sufficiently notable for inclusion, but the tone of writing should be corrected and the article should be sourced further. --Javit 12:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article's subject seems very flash-in-the-pan, and I doubt its notability. It has only been in existence for 2 months - I'd be surprised if it makes it to 4 months. Noting this article's subject on its parent article should be sufficient. --Plumbago 13:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep but what a flash-in-the-pan it is. Their protest of the Opie and Anthony thing was covered on the major cable news networks, decent news coverage here [1]. Still, this could very well be something that folds in a few weeks once everyone goes back to work/school but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. --W.marsh 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I've done some significant expansion of it for now. One major interview and a number of non-trivial appearances regarding their causes seems to cement their notability, and there's no question on their verifiability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - W.marsh is probably right about the "flash in the pan," especially seeing as how their Web page is a broken link, but either way it's a useful historical sidelight into the Imus debacle. FCYTravis 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (barely!) There are, just, two independent sources that this group exists - however fleeting its presence might be! Several editors with registered accounts have edited the page, doesn't seem to be entirely the product of the organisation's own founders. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since when did "we have proof that this exists" equate with a keep? Corvus cornix 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, my mistake. It's not the fact of the group's existence that is the issue. But two independent media outlets have found it sufficiently notable to report on its existence, and these reports establish (however marginally) the notability.Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Corvus cornix 17:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, group fails WP:N in particular WP:N#Notability is not temporary; there is no evidence for anything but a quick dash of reflected glory in the press as Don Imus was self-destructing. Really little more notable than the driver of the "red pickup" who allegedly was involved in The Governor of New Jersey's 90-MPH car crash during his attempt to get 15 minutes of political capital from the Imus incident. Carlossuarez46 17:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actualy, they've been reached for comment on three high-profile firings in the last few months, not just the Imus one. Whether that will speak to their longevity as an organization is one thing (and an issue we don't tackle), but it certainly speaks to the media at least taking the organization for what it is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per badlydrawnjeff. --JJay 18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for now. If it is still here in a year then we can look again.-Doc^g 09:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Carlossuarez46. --Toxicroak 12:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep with strong leanings toward deletion per the above discussion.--WaltCip 19:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Extremely poorly sourced. Only source 1 actually has anything to do with PAC, an interview with its founder. Source 2 does not mention them, source 3 is no longer available on Yahoo!, and source 4 only mentions the organization in passing with regard to a protest. If this is going to be kept, it needs more sources to show notability. -- Kesh 03:13, 10 June 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.