Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/12 Candidate


 * 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   delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

9/12 Candidate
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I originally deleted this as A7-Corp, but another editor objected, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. ... disco spinster   talk  20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just received notification that this page is slotted for deletion. My opinion may not matter much.  If you delete this page now you'll only be re-adding it later.  9/12 Candidate is growing as a buzzword among political circles.  We are NOT in an election year, but the organization finding and promoting 9/12 Candidates is growing strong.  In fact there are more that 600,000 people listed as 9/12ers in the country.


 * There is a political tsunami in the works. 9/12 Candidates is a part of that.  I would recommend that you NOT delete this page.  One of Wikipedia's strength's is that is accommodates new ideas faster than traditional media encyclopaedias.  Granted, I'm not the final say, that's for someone else who may have no idea what's going on.  Sure, you wont here this mentioned on the news yet, but just because it's operating under the radar of the traditional media doesn't mean that it's not viable.


 * My 2 cents


 * Jacob F. Roecker (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete it now, and add it back when it becomes notable.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Even assuming notability, it's better suited for a dictionary.-Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. When and if this becomes notable then it can be included, yes. Wikipedia might be faster than a paper encyclopedia but it is not a crystal ball--Talain (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Political tsunami or not, it's not notable yet. The article relies almost entirely on a website run by the 9/12 project. We could normally use Glenn Beck's show as a RS, but when it's to promote it's own project, the COI becomes an issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait I understand this article doesn't quite fit the norms yet.  Believe me it's odd, and yes, ATM it's difficult to reference outside of the site.  That's changing, and changing rapidly.  Within the next week Wikipedia's articles for Adam Kokesh, and Rosanna Pulido will be changing.  Ron Miller and Rand Paul's pages should be linking back to this one.  Because the organization is not a 501C or a PAC it's official identity is based on the candidates who are willing to sign, and the volunteers who are working on the site.  Let's look at it from this perspective...  There are more than 600,000 people who identify themselves as 9/12ers.  They will want candidates who represent what they stand for.  A 9/12 Candidate can come from any political party.  They simply need to sign the contract.
 * For the record, I think maybe what needs to happen is this article should be steered toward the point where it can remain. No one working on this is paid by Glenn Beck or his staff to falsely promote something on his behalf.  912Candidates.org isn't run by "the 9/12 project"  I'm sure most of the contributors to the article have visited the website.
 * So, if I understand things properly. The wiki pages (that already exist) for candidates who have signed this contract ought to link here.  The references ought to refer to the candidate's websites, not the posts on http://912candidates.org.  The article needs to mention something regarding its significance towards the top of the article--I think referencing 600,000 people who identify themselves as 9/12ers ought to do it.  With those changes, will it still be under consideration for deletion? 70.243.182.46 (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that Beck runs the website, but it is impossible to seperate him from this because it is his idea, word for word. Nor have I accused anyone from Beck's staff from being involved. I don't think that is the case at all. Regardless, the 912candidates.org website is a primary source and the article relies almost entirely on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. You will be adding this later. The 9/12 Movement can be referenced or used as an addendum to the Tea Parties of 2009.
 * Do not delete. Merely because you disagree with a stance, doesn't mean it should be deleted from Wikipedia.  This is not a minor movement, but rather includes 100's of thousands of people.
 * Delete. So far, this would appear to be a non-notable organization and a one-man campaign.  If it becomes notable in the future, this can always be reconsidered. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unreferencable at present, as the article's advocate admits. Possible merge with the article on Beck. DGG (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the referencing issues mentioned above have now been addressed. How do we ask the fine editors for another reiview?  Also, this may best be modified for an entry on a page about "the 9/12 Movement" or "the 9/12 Project."  Thus far Glenn Beck's page is the only one that references these two things.  9/12 Candidates may fit nicely into an article about a "9/12 Movement" 155.219.241.11 (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (JFR)
 * Delete without prejudice against re-creation. Per others' comments, it can be restored when notability is better established.--JayJasper (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * G2G --I believe all of the issues addressed in this review have now been covered. Prominence is determined by the calibre of the candidates (Rand Paul and Sen Bob Smith) as well as the AIP's endorsement.  The construction of the article is still sloppy, but I don't believe this is grounds for deletion, rather good coaching on the part of the editors, whose input I welcome on the discussion page for the article.   155.219.241.11 (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC) (JFR)
 * Delete. Predictions of "this party will be very popular" violates WP:CRYSTAL. 68.244.204.67 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like grounds for re-wording not delete there... but hey.  I'm the new guy.  That's why I asked for good coaching from editors...  ;-) 70.243.182.46 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)(JFR)
 * Looked for such predictions and didn't see them... Please advise  (jacob  912candidates.org)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia is not a free web hosting or promotion service. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The title doesn't fit the material. The material is mostly about the 9-12 pledge. The material is already on the Glenn Beck article. The article may never be able to be notable because the relevant information about candidates who sign the pledge is: they signed. It would seem doomed to be always a copy of the pledge, and a list of the candidates. And of course the aforementioned issues of notability, present or foretold. Anarchangel (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:As Anarchangel points out, the material is in the Glenn Beck article, so perhaps a redirect to that page should be considered.--JayJasper (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As written, this is a political manifesto whose purpose is to promote a particular view of government and a set of candidates who've signed a pledge to uphold that view, not an objective article about a political movement. While it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that a genuine encyclopedia article could be written about this topic, this article isn't it. Delete unless vastly improved by close. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Glenn Beck, perhaps to Glenn_Beck. The fork appears to be sourced primarily to WP:SELFPUBs and does not demonstrate independent notability. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to Glenn Beck. As it stands now this article is little more than blatant WP:SOAP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * EDIT Dear Editors: It seems to me that you ought to start living up to your name and helping to edit the bias out of the article.  The same amount of keystrokes it takes to offer a recommendation for "delete" might be used to edit the bias in the article.  Or am I starting to sniff an agenda in the air?   Seems a bias is the only thing wrong with the page now.  That's not grounds for deletion.  That's grounds for editing!!!
 * Comment: The main problem seems to be that the article does not verify that its topic is independently notable. A secondary issue is that a WP:SOAPBOX appears to have filled this void of notability. If you can remedy the first concern (as you are welcome to do, and as you may be required to do if you would like for the material to have an article), then you would drastically increase the odds of deferring the second concern to the WP:TALKPAGE. In a nutshell, the article's foundation isn't so much slanted as it is nonexistent. Give us a notable place to stand on, and we can go from there. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * AIP's endorsement doesn't qualify? http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=5612&posts=1&highlight=912%20aip&highlightmode=1#M16785
 * A primary source like that might have a place in the America's Independent Party article, but it does not go very far toward establishing objective notability about this 9/12 thing. See WP:PSTS, WP:SPS, and WP:SELFPUB (especially provision #5) for more info. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that's a little bit clearer. So, how long does this review process go on?  It might take close to a month to have this particular issue addressed.  Besides, I'm not seeing the same comments about Green Bloggers, Blogging Tories, and Cox_%26_Forkum and maybe some attention should be headed that way...  This wikipedia entry will probably remain stagnant for a couple of weeks before this can be addressed.  It would make sense though, that the basic definition of a 9/12 Candidate is added to the Category:9/12 Candidates page.  This would help define the topic, and those that qualify for the category Rand Paul etc.  Would this be an appropriate solution?  Delete this entry until a more credible source exists, add the definition of what a 9/12 Candidate is to the Category:9/12 Candidates page?  The category is likely to be legitimate even if this article is not.  Please advise.
 * AfDs usually last for a week, making this one due for closure by the 7th. If you think you could improve the article but would need more time, then you might be able to WP:USERFY it for a while. If you'd rather avoid that hassle, then you can just save the piece to your hard drive before the AfD closes (click the article's edit tab, select and copy the contents, and paste them into a word processor), and then re-create it once you're reasonably confident that it conforms to encyclopedic standards (especially WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV). If the revision did still end up back at AfD, it might stand a greater chance than the current version of ending in a "keep" or at least a "merge/redirect" consensus. As for the category, that is up for deletion, too. In fact, it was that discussion that led me to this one. I haven't participated in that CfD; I just saw it after I nominated one of my own on the same day. Ironically, it was the mention of a preexisting category that legitimated the item I wanted to delete (and led me to withdraw the nomination), whereas the category you're invoking is just as controversial as the item you're defending. I have a hunch that both the AfD and the CfD are going to end up as deletes, so I'd recommend userfication or something like it if you think you can improve the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. If the article ends up being WP:REDIRECTed to, say, Glenn Beck rather than deleted outright, then all previous versions of the article will remain available to you in the page history of the redirect. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Question So if this one has gone through the review process, and gets deleted on the 7th, then I will happily nominate Green Bloggers, Blogging Tories, and Cox_%26_Forkum for the same review process as well.  If wikipedia's policies are to be enforced, they should be enforced on the left & right of the political spectrum.  The volume of discussion on this topic appears as though the conservative entries are worth the attention and review of editors (even deletion) while entries on the left remain.  In order to maintain wikipedia's neutrality those other entries should submit to this same review.  Until they are brought to that point, I does not fit reason that this article should be deleted.
 * Comment: As pointed out below, WP:WAX is a poor argument. But, for what it's worth, Green Bloggers is up for deletion, and in fact received from me a similar !vote (i.e., merge/redirect) to the one I gave for 9/12 Candidate (i.e., redirect). However, any nominations (or !votes) that you make are likely to be overridden if you make them simply in order to prove a WP:POINT. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable at this time per lack of independent reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No non-primary non-bloggish cites to support notability of this group (or "grouping") itself. Deletion isn't "forever", it's just "for now"...if and when it reaches the threshold of citeable notability, it becomes worthy of an article here. DMacks (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It fails WP:WEB because I can't find a single RS. In regards to "There is a political tsunami in the works", see WP:CRYSTAL. When the wave hits, let us know.  APK  coffee talk  15:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Enforce your standards Green Bloggers, Blogging Tories, and Cox_%26_Forkum are not labeled for deletion review.
 * WP:WAX is not an excuse for keeping this article. If you feel that the articles you have listed do not meet Wikipedia policies or guidelines, you are free to nominate them for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was an excuse for keeping this article. I said you need to enforce your standards.  It's not MY encyclopedia that looks biased.  Why does this article get so much attention?  Really.  If I do recommend them for deletion, then it's easy for the authors to cite me as having an agenda.  That's not how this is supposed to work.  I'm surprised you might have suggested it.  If I did believe that wikipedia had an agenda (and the jury is still out), I might think that was the intent of your suggestion, have me (with my "evil" conservative views) label something as not noteworthy, and have it remain because it's easy in our culture to call your opponent biased.  So, no, I won't be nominating the aforementioned sites for deletion.  I will continue to argue that if several people who are noteworthy enough to have a wikipedia article about them, have signed this contract, then the contract, by nature is noteworthy.  I will also argue that just because something has not hit the 'mainstream media' for verification, invalidates it's importance.  Certainly after an independent blogtalkradio host with several hundred listeners called us, and asked us to be the subject of at least 7 of his shows, including interviews with Rand Paul and Senator Bob Smith, this should validate the article.  Of course, that didn't hit the normal media.  So it doesn't qualify.  Just like the 9/12 Movement get's a casual mention on Glenn Beck's article, but no one is writing a separate article about how the 661,000 9/12ers are forming non-profit organizations, PACs, and Kitchen Table Organizations across the country.  Still, my favorite argument against this whole thing is the blacklisting of "washingtonisbroke" because I asked him to make edits.  Gee, he knew something about what was going on, and edited user generated content.  Don't you as editors edit based upon what you research and what you know?  I mean the article on "communication" is biased, it was written by authors of the American Communication Association and represents only a small portion of the discipline, and a relatively narrow model.  It's also written in such a way that major changes would have to be made to the article in order to fix it.  I know, that doesn't justify leaving this up.  Got it.  What it does illustrate is that one of the fundamental issues with user generated content is that the users who edit, are generally the ones who know something about their subject.  This article does meet notability guidelines.  661,000 9/12ers, AIP endorsement on their website, published by their site admin (would you like the head of AIP to send you an email--I can get it?), Glenn Beck discussing it on his radio show, and candidates who have already had wikipedia articles about them for years.  So if those four things don't qualify this article as noteworthy, I guess we'll have to wait until some "noteworthy" organization recognizes 9/12 Candidates.  Since the accuracy of noteworthy organizations is never without question.  Of course, I'm sure the reason this article is getting so much attention is because of the embarrassment a few months ago: .  Yeah, wouldn't want to repeat that one again....      Please people, aren't there more important things to be worrying about editing?  Or maybe actually, could you help "Edit" the article so bias is removed, the subject is discussed, and the article conforms more towards wikipedia's guidelines?  Thank you for your time.
 * 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.