Talk:Center for Economic Progress

Speedy deletion nomination of Center for Economic Progress


A tag has been placed on Center for Economic Progress, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Center for Economic Progress and leave a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 12.184.222.106 (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused. Does this article not satisfy WP:NOTE and WP:VERIFY? --beefyt (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For one thing, the references are primary, so they fail WP:RS. Furthermore, given the wording, the article fails WP:SPAM. Information worded like "helped 33,000 Illinois families obtain $52 million in tax refunds" must be omitted altogether if it can't be checked from reliable secondary sources not affiliated with the subject. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with the Community Media Workshop and Chicago Sun-Times sources specifically? I think these are reliable secondary sources that establish the notability of the subject. It is not "unwanted info". --beefyt (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, okay, I was wrong about the Chicago Sun-Times, but that kind of information is still unencyclopedic, as it constitutes praiseful, therefore unwanted, information. See WP:PEACOCK. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reinserted the information in a less promotional manner. Please note that a Wikipedia page must not be written like it's the subject's home page. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I appreciate your help and absence of bias. I can see treading the promotion-versus-information line can difficult. I figured the text I had was not puffery but I'm not going to argue the point. --beefyt (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Replaced article with new version
I started working on a draft of this article on 30 June 2010. On 8 July the article was started and quickly marked for cleanup. On 9 July I merged the existing article into my draft and replaced the article with my final version. --beefyt (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)