Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheVanguard.Org

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 :Relist because of majority of votes here are from a sockpuppeter (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DelosHarriman). WinHunter ^(talk) 12:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TheVanguard.Org

The page is primarily promoting and advertising and is almost completely unverifiable. DoctorSqueak 11:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 23:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Mars-Sekhmet, UABVulcan, and Jawed3 all make good points. Wiki is not the right place for political disagreements. Groups like TheVanguard.org, Move-On, NOW, ATR, etc. are all important players in America's democratic process. TheVanguard.org has influential board members and a high profile president, plus the article is thoroughly referenced. Turkey2020 15:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep UABVulcan is right. Disagreements with an organization are not grounds for its removal from Wiki. It's certainly no more "promotional" than the Move-On, NOW, or Act Up articles. The article is accurate, well-referenced, and does not resort to puffery. Mars-Sekhmet 13:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep The continued character assassination using wiki as a political POV vehicle is appalling. Besides, this article is a NPOV entry which states merely the facts about a political organization. As such, my vote is to keep. UABVulcan 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep This vote is just part of the general attack on Rod Martin. That was settled on his article, and it's time to settle it here. Jawed3 21:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep For all the reasons just stated in my comment below, I think this article should be here (which is why I wrote it in the first place). Everyone knows about the big names like Dobson and Kennedy and Falwell, but they need to know who else is in the room when Rove is doing his thing. These people have access, they are privy to things the rest of us are not, and everyone has a right to know that. And whoever's trying to cover it up is doing everyone a real disservice. Maybe they're stooges for the RNC. DelosHarriman 16:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep There is nothing in this article which makes any special claims about the group. However, the group is clearly relevant, in that it is a participating member of the Arlington Group[1], an tight little organization of pro-family groups led by people like Jim Dobson and D. James Kennedy which gets regular private briefings at the White House and has gotten a lot of negative press for its inside leaks from Karl Rove.[2][3] It seems obvious to me that the public would want to know who these people are and (horrors!) even what they say about themselves. Unless you're trying to cover this sort of thing up.... Samdmd 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Arlington Group is composed of at least 75 member groups. If you actually look at the groups you cannot seriously argue that all 75 of them are notable.

Over half of the Arlington Group's member organizations are actually part of another Arlington Group member organization (e.g., there are at least three on the list which are headed by D. James Kennedy, at least ten headed by James Dobson). The number of principles in the room is reputed to be about thirty; and they have constant access to Rove, Bush, etc. If that's not notable (especially to the majority of Americans who don't like George Bush and Karl Rove), I'd like to know what is. I think all of this should be known, and I think you're engaging in a cover-up. DelosHarriman 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think that Rod Martin has constant access to Rove or Bush, it is hard to know what to respond except that your Rod Martin boosterism is getting in the way of your analytical skills.

• Comment Alexa ranking of 919,635. --Xyzzyplugh 00:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center's been around forever and has an Alexa ranking of 101,229. The National Urban League is huge and has an Alexa ranking of 435,884 (which is about what TheVanguard.Org's was this week). Americans for Tax Reform is widely considered one of the most influential lobbying groups in America: its Alexa ranking is 573,517. So what? Samdmd 01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The southern povery law center, the national urban league, and americans for tax reform are organizations which happen to have websites, so alexa ranking would not be terribly important in determining their notability. Alexa ranking is useful for helping to determine the notability of something that is a website. --Xyzzyplugh 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexa ranking just hit 370,380, with a one week ranking much higher. Pretty big jump (on a 3 month moving average) since your comment mere days ago. Puts them ahead of most major conservative groups in the country too. Oops for you. DelosHarriman 18:08, 4 September 2006 (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.