Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unity08

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 Keep. KrakatoaKatie 03:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unity08

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Self-promotion & Advertising DXRAW 20:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  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}}
  • Delete per nom. No outside sources on anything, it just reeks of spam. EVula 21:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has some POV problems, but it's nothing some good citations and rewriting can't fix. Note that this isn't a trivial group either - it has received some mainstream media attention. Two of the founders have appeared on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and The Washington Post has written a print article about it as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just revise so article is acceptable.— Possible single purpose account: 68.94.195.127 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep Seems to be mentioned in several articles, several of which are focussed directly on this group. [1] Resolute 01:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article needs a pretty significant re-write. While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the founders are generally respected individuals in politics and can generate some noise over the next year, even if they accomplish absolutely nothing.Montco 01:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Every single citation is to their own web site! I know the group theoretically meets WP:N, barely, but as-is the article probably would have gotten yanked in five minutes if someone had just slapped a {{db-web}} tag on it. I'll change my !vote if someone does a major rewrite to bring it up to snuff, but I'm not going to do it, as I'm not personally convinced this organization is even going to survive 2007. --Aaron 05:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote; see below.
  • Keep per Jtalledo, but the Wpost article (evidence of notability) must be included as a ref. Derex 05:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but probably needs some rewriting. Alpharigel 19:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've just completed a significant rewrite to the article, addressing the concerns raised in this discussion. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Jtalledo's rewrite. --Aaron 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Being involved in politics and current events I have heard often of Unity08 (maybe more than I realize since it was months before I discovered it was Unity08 and not unity [in] '08). I have heard them discussed on Glenn Beck's radio show a number of times as well. While I was an insider I overheard a number of discussions indicating that ignoring the group will make them go away. So, from my own personal experiences I know they are a growing force in American politics. --Tony 17:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with rewrite. I think it's going a bit far to call it advertising. SteveLamacq43 16:19, 25 October 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.