Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn

ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable and WP:RECENT Soxwon (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Literally thousands of news stories from all the top reliable sources. Significant political impact. Here's a better search for finding relevant articles - Ronnotel (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Still WP:RECENT, won't be relevant two months from now... Soxwon (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree - more likely that ACORN won't be relevant two months from now. Ronnotel (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're joking right? If illegitimate relations were all it took to make something irrelevant than why do I still keep hearing about Bill Clinton? Soxwon (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really buy the analogy to Clinton, but believing this controversy is going to be forgotten in two months is hardly realistic. Republicans plan to queue this up as an issue for next year's election. Plus, ACORN has filed a lawsuit that promises to make headlines for months as the discovery process proceeds (if it's not kicked out of court first). Far too much here to discard as WP:RECENTISM. Ronnotel (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's not just me saying that ACORN's viability is in question. See this USA Today article: For ACORN, controversy now a matter of survival Ronnotel (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Of course it is notable. Several major government agencies (Census Bureau and IRS) have taken significant action as a result of the documentary film released.  Furthermore, both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives have taken substantial majority votes to cut off Federal funding.  All of this is documented in hundreds of news stories from the durably-archived major media. N2e (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the proposer's assertion of WP:RECENT as one of her/his two criteria for AfD:
 * The Wikipedia:Recentism essay is a guideline that explicitly states that "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion—lack of attributability and notability are". In this case, both notability and attirbutability have been clearly established through two weeks and hundreds of edits on the topic within the ACORN article section where this material first came from.  N2e (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait and see keep- the problem with arguing about whether its encylopedic and/or just trivial news is that nobody here has the perspective gained from looking back on it from the future. We just don't know whether or not the appearence of being more than just news is just appearence, or substance, and we can't for some time. The reason I'm going with keep over delete here is that I do believe there is some encyclopedic merit to this article. I am however, prepared, if this afd is re-opened in a couple of months to re-evaluate my opinion. For what its worth, and I can't remember the exact story, but congress' knee-jerk vote to remove federal funding from ACORN over this (of which it receives none anyway), may actually wind up accidentally cancelling some millitary spending as well. If true, this would certainly show the encyclopedic merit of this story. In summay- It seems encyclopedic, lets wait until we have a better viewpoint to decide for certain. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two asides- One, I'm actually surprised it took this long to get an article on the subject. Its been kicking around for weeks now with no sign of letup, and two: If kept, the article will need to be really re-written. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Hell this is a rather big deal if there was an actual US Congress vote against them, keep this it will be of historical importance as well as current importance. --WngLdr34 (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment However, if need be I'd support a merge into the Acorn article proper, but for now keep it and give it another month till the hype dies down, then put it up again. --WngLdr34 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep You have got to be kidding me. Of course, if this were some radical right-wing group, it would be kept.--Carolinapanthersfan (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - masses of sources to meet WP:GNG. The point about recentism hangs on whether there are longer term consequences. Already a number of significant political actions have been taken and and my judgement is that the implications will still be covered by reliable sources in future months. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Not notable? How does someone justify "not notable" for this one?  Frotz (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's huge in the media, and I don't recall a case of so many federal agencies (and Congress) yanking money due to a privately done undercover operation. Citing WP:RECENT is beyond silly; it's an essay, an opinion, not a policy, guideline, or consensus view, and, besides, it says to consider overall perspective, not ban recent material.  How can anyone seriously claim this is non-notable from a wider perspective? Calbaer (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable. In time, as others have noted, this might do better as a merged section of the main article, but for now it should stand on its own. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. If the alleged misconduct is true, it will be a major blow, maybe even a fatal one, to an important 39-year-old nationwide advocacy group.  If it's mostly or entirely false, it will still be notable as a major slanderous attack, just as the Killian memos remain notable despite the fact that they were proven to be largely forgeries.  As a practical matter, this article was the first place I found that provided a fairly clear explanation of what the controversy was about.  Please keep it.  Pirate Dan (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously very notable. A lot of secondary source coverage, and growing daily. - Crockspot (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - likely search subject, useful to readers. Tom Harrison Talk 00:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not everything that makes the news is barred WP:NOTNEWS, and not everything that is recent is barred by WP:RECENT. I think the only strike against this one is that it could use a better title.  Mandsford (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait and see keep - per my past statements at AfD and per Umbralcorax. I could easily argue that it is not notable: it is just a flash in the pan and another example of conservatives kicking a dead horse named ACORN.  I'd tag it for WP:POV and WP:UNDUE, move on, and nominate it again in two months. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Obviously notable, since it involves multiple theaters and many significant players in American politics. Similar in content and notability as articles discussing other such controversies. Dragoneer (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tremendous keep. This video business (I don't want to say "incident", as it's gone far beyond that in my mind) has by now led to at least two votes in the United States Congress, one in the Senate and one in the House.  I don't think it's stretching a point to say that the videos helped drive both votes in the direction in which they ultimately went.  I know it's a tad early to say, but I don't see this going away for ACORN any time soon. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep One damn big event. Done with two kids whose ages add up to 45, a camera and grandma's fur coat. Take on a huge, influential organization, shake it up like a massive earthquake and maybe even bring it down, get an article on Wikipedia. The innovation in combining cheap but concealed video (a $1,300 operation in total, right?) and somewhat daring concept, done by newbies (or amateurs) is deeply innovative and sets one heck of an example. It's impossible to think that this will be forgotten years from now. It's easy to imagine others doing this and shaking up American and world journalism. It's now impossible to ignore ACORN's problems. The subject easily meets WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:WHATEVER JohnWBarber (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2009 (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.