Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porkbusters

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Porkbusters

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}}

This seems to me like nothing more than a massive, blog-based astroturfing campaign. The only thing that linked here was the pork barrel article, though I had already removed the link while copy-editing the article, since it didn't seem to have any value at all and appeared to have been spammed by Porkbusters supporters. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and Expand. Porkbusters has received widespread media coverage in its attempt to highlight wasteful spending by the US Government see [1] The effort was co-founded by Instapundit a leading blogger. Already 246,000 Google results for a campaign founded a month and a half ago is pretty impressive in my book. [2] This campaign highlights dissatisfaction by conservatives and libertarians over high levels of Government spending in recent years. Capitalistroadster 06:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Capitalistroadster. --badlydrawnjeff 13:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster as this is a media covered phenomenon, though I'm tempted to AfD the blogcruft Capitalistroadster mentioned in his reason...--Isotope23 18:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If you're referring to Instapundit, that's not blogcruft. It is one of the most widely-read blogs in the world is not hyperbole. android79 03:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I was... and I was joking. Even I would not advocate deleting what is probably one of the 5 most widely read blogs on the internet. Guess I forgot my <sarcasm> tags. On a side note, it is interesting to read many of the votes here; I think the long term significance and effectiveness of Porkbusters is being vastly over-rated... but maybe I'm just cynical from too many years of following politics. --Isotope23 20:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Temporary Internet fame does not an encyclopedic article make. Please stop encouraging people to cram Wikipedia with publicity stunts. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: For the moment, I would suggest leaving it. It seems pretty notable, and several hundred thousand hits for a campaign that's been running for a just over a month is pretty impressive. If in a few months time all the hype dies down, and it proves itself to be nothing more than a fad, at that time I would advocate deletion, but for the time being, if I had to make a choice, I would say Keep. Saberwyn 05:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is a serious attempt to address a serious political and economic problem, and probably one of greater long term significance than, say, Cindy Sheehan. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is it's ability to address "flash topics." - Lawrence Person

• Keep. "Massive blog-based astroturfing campaign?" Isn't that a contradiction in terms? The "porkbusters" effort isn't being pushed by a single organization or even party; it's an entirely voluntary and yes, grass-roots movement. I could just as easily say that the Cindy Sheehan hysteria in August was a "massive media-based astroturfing campaign on behalf of a marginal band of leftie radicals." That wouldn't give me the right to ban any mention of it from a public forum.
• Keep TDC 17:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for reasons already listed. --Viper Daimao 17:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for reasons already listed. Additionally, it appears very likely that this campaign will mark a seismic shift in the country's approach to federal spending and earmarks for a particular district. As such, it will also be a seminal point in the growing influence of citizen journalism on public policy.

[User:lblanchard\lblanchard]]

• Strong KeepIt's a real issue - plenty of good reasons already given and Im not even a Yank or in the States. --Nick-in-South-Africa 17:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep As long as the article maintains a NPOV, I see absolutely no reason to delete the article. Keithius 18:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As long as the article maintains a NPOV, I see absolutely no reason to delete the article. Keithius 18:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Nothing could be more relevant 20 years in the future. A glimpse of how the people of America stood up against the underhanded dealings that hurt the American tax-payer (and for reasons listed) --theclanoneill 1:10, 13 October 2005 (CST)
• Strong Keep "a seminal point in the growing influence of citizen journalism on public policy" - BINGO! Brendano 18:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

.

• Strong KeepThis is a big time project, and certainly, as noted above, has more impact that Cindy Sheehan. As a result of this project, there has already been committments to return almost $100,000,000 in specific cuts, while many more representatives have pledged to do the same. If this doesn't deserve notice, I don't know what does.
• Strong Keep and Expand Porkbusters is notable now and has great potential to morph into a permanent political movement. If they succeed in getting offsets for Katrina relief, they'll deserve a permanent entry. If they fail, then perhaps in two or three years this entry should be deleted. Danlovejoy 18:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep whether or not ya like it, it's certainly notable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep--this is a watershed movement in the blogosphere and the American conservative movement, and is therefore notable. Philip Taron 21:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Expand This effort has apparently already found some results; it is certainly significant enough for Wikipedia. gavindow 21:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems obvious opposition to this is ideologically-based, contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Presently, there's no reason whatsoever to delete it. If it comes to naught, it can always be removed when that becomes clear. For now, though, it's news. A better rewrite would be a good thing, though. Jdb1972 21:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Expand. A major political campaign conducted through the new media--what could be more worthy of an article on Wikipedia?--Amargo Scribe 21:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as a nascent and important political movement with some very high profile sponsors. Jtmichcock 21:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It could use some editing to make the overall appearence cleaner and have more information on what is involved with the 'movement' but there is no good reason to have the entry deleted other then politically motivation.
• Strong Keep Disagreeing with a group of people does not make their efforts "blog-based astroturfing". More fundamentally, even if the phrase were accurate, it would not follow that the article should be deleted. The criticism is silly and shallow.
• Strong Keep This is an example of a truly grassroots political phenomenon and will persist independent of what Wikipedia does.
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Greetings, Instapundit readers. Your enthusiasm is admirable, but please keep in mind that input from very new user accounts is routinely discounted on AfD – this policy is in place to combat the swarm of "one-issue voters," if you will, that shows up when one of the most popular blogs links to a particular discussion, for instance. As it stands now, this article is unlikely to be deleted. If you came here from Instapundit and just created a Wikipedia account, please consider not voting, as you will only complicate the closing out of this discussion by the administrator who does it. android79 02:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I am not a regular contributor to Wikipedia, but I have gotten into the habit of checking Wikipedia whenever I come across new terms such as this. Perhaps when the movement is finished and the term is no longer floating around it would be appropriate to revisit the decision.

That's basically what I'm thinking. If it fizzles out and turns out to have been ineffective, it will presumably be less noteworthy. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't have nearly as much of a problem with it now that it doesn't just read like a content-free spamming attempt to make it sound more established than it is. I would withdraw the AfD if I didn't think it were already going to be kept anyway. My apologies to people who have taken offense at my wording, but I stand by it; if nothing else, we apparently have very different definitions. Thanks to the people who have helped turn it into a real article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Emphatic Keep: Even if Porkbusters itself is a short-lived phenomenon (possible but not certain), it's emblematic of the way the new, grass-roots media works, in ephemeral fits and starts that occasionally catch and move mountains. As such, it's useful. Mitchberg 12:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't need to add anything, do I? — Sandstein 13:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Expand: Just as 9/11 caused some political realignments to take place, the Katrina rebuilding efforts are causing them as well. Anything that can get the Republican base aligned with Nancy Pelosi is worth a closer examination. The Monster 14:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Emphatic Keep: I would of course be pleased to see the entry kept, but that's up to the Wikipedia community. If it is kept, however, I'd ask that the URL for the main porkbusters page be corrected, as it has a typo now. The correct url is http://truthlaidbear.com/porkbusters. -N.Z. Bear
  • Fixed the typo. You are welcome to make any other improvements to the article, even while it is being considered for deletion, except for merging its content elsewhere or changing the article's name. android79 14:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, you should consider putting a 301 "moved permanently" redirect in if you intend to make that URL canonical. This will help search engines realize that the .php version should not be used. I've done this many times on relatively high-traffic pages and never had any trouble with PageRank dropping or anything like that. —HorsePunchKid→龜 16:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: At least until history decides if this is the beginning of a movement, or a flash in the pan. At the very least, it's a nation-wide call for debate on the buying of votes by Congress.
• Stong Keep: This is the start of a movement that is getting national media coverage. I believe that this will have its place in history as the end of the wall between the wants of government and those of private citizens. -lilbrocool 21:07, 14 October 2005

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.