Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party United Means Action

Add links
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 per cleanup and sourcing changes since AfD filed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Party United Means Action

[edit]
Party United Means Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)


Besides the fact that the bulk of the article is an unsourced mess, none of the sources seem to establish the notability of this organisation. I would suggest merging this to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-28 09:12

  • Strong delete, and someone throw a speedy tag on it PUMA Pac was deleted on the 25th. This article was created on the 27th. It is completely possible that this was a good-faith recreation of effort. Even so, the content is VERY similar and should be treated as an (accidental) recreation of deleted materials. Protonk (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, the PAc is no longer officially called Party unity my ass and if we keep the article it at least has to be renamed to whatever they filed w/ the FEC. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I put a speedy tag up there. Protonk (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated and consider semi-protection of the page in the meantime. I just caught a new user with the obvious single-purpose name of "Notapuma" blanking the references section. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CSD G4 tag removed w/ the edit summary of "let AfD do its thing". That's all well and good, but the page is previously deleted content under a different name. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an article in progress. It appears that most of the criticism here is based upon disagreement with the political point of veiw of the creators. I would suggest reading this article before passing judgement: Wikipedia:Give an article a chance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.64.114 (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple reliable articles discussing an organization grant notability generally. I am bemused as to why there are claims they are not sufficient here. I fully agree this article is notable. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made several modifications to the article, including linking the sources with claims. I am even more convinced now of the notability of this subject. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please understand that as the one who nominated this article for deletion I have no interest in this political debate whatsoever. I'm a Dutch guy living in Switzerland, and I really don't care about American politics. I just have not seen this particular organization have any independent media coverage. There has been plenty of coverage of disgruntled Hillary supporters, and those sources make up the bulk of the article, but this particular PAC seems to be rather non-notable. So please don't see this deletion nomination as some kind of politically motivated pro-Obama hit job, because it isn't. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-2 01:03
  • Fox News, CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post and The New York Daily can hardly be described as not independent media coverage. This article is not only about the PAC. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense intended whatsoever, but how can someone who doesn't live in North America and has no interest in American politics determine what is notable about the more nuanced aspects of it? As the article currently shows, there are several major news sources that have given specific coverage on them. There's also a June 23 article at salon.com that generally refers to the apparently disenfranchised female Clinton-turned-McCain voters as PUMAs specifically in reference to the group. I'm not sure exactly what my vote on this is going to be this second, but I currently don't see any reason whatsoever for it to be deleted; notability, references, and POV issues seem to be good enough for a keep at this point. 24.76.165.69 (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. It definitely needs revision, but this particular movement probably will be noted in a history of the 2008 US presidential campaign.--Soultaco (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this organization is growing and will become increasingly an important factor in the upcoming Democratic convention. --Buster Capiñoaz (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Weak Keep notability has been established at a marginal level. I think we are too soon to judge if this is recentism. I am willing to entertain a wager with the two !votes above as to this organization's overall impact in the election, which is likely to be 0. :) Protonk (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Google Trends: party unity my ass, Jun 9, 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Party_United_Means_Action&oldid=1069503087"