Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americans for Legal Immigration


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Americans for Legal Immigration

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG rather plainly. As a PAC, it has supported various causes and occasionally has been mentioned off-handedly in news sources. This does not notability make, not even of the WP:GNG variety. Flash in the pan, obviously also being used as a political WP:SOAPbox. Put this horrible partisan article out of its misery as it is a blemish on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC) This is part of a smear or delete campaign against a well known, decade old, national organization cited in about every major media publication in America as well as foreign media. Editors Volunteer Marek and Minor4th are calling for deletion (citing a lack of sources) after they deleted several sources added including PBS, Associated Press, Breitbart, and World Net Daily. Volunteer Marek's first edit of the page was an attempt to inject a disparaging comment from an opposition organization into the first sentence of the article as you can see in the edit history of the page. Also, Volunteer Marek initiated this edit war and proceeded to try to delete any positive 3rd party acceptable source materials about this group. Volunteer Marek's Wiki profile shows that he has been warned before about trying to use Wikipedia for a political agenda, most notably in defense of sexual predators on sex offender registries. Of note is the fact that the organization that Volunteer Marek is attacking chronicles and archives information about a large volume of sexual predators in America.
 * Delete - despite talk page discussion, the primary IP editor has been unable to provide reliable sources or establish notability. I have searched myself and just do not find this group to be notable - I could not find any quality sources to improve the article, which is currently sourced substantially to its own website.  Minor4th  17:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Too much of the article seems to be devoted to one-off incidents and frighteningly partisan quotes. GABHello! 17:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - The PAC is only mentioned in a brief passing in reliable sources. Most of the page's content is supported by a primary source. With the IP's activity and COI aside, the page is biased and lacks significance. Meatsgains (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - This national organization is well established and mentioned in hundreds of news reports and videos. Reliable sources attribute the group as one of the leading voices in the debate about illegal immigration and the Library of Congress archives the group due to the notability of their contributions to legislation and campaigns.  Unfortunately, Wikipedia is too filled with biased editors that are hell bent upon attacking this group, censoring information, maligning the group with falsehoods, etc...  It is best to Delete this page because otherwise the group will be the constant target of dissenters attempting to use Wikipedia to malign the group.  Wikipedia is clearly not a place where any kind of accurate and quality description of this group can be achieved because it is a place where one or two editors can pursue a political agenda.   The organization derives no benefit from being on Wikipedia and Wikipedia has proven itself to be incapable of providing a fair and balanced open source platform where the organization's well documented actions that have shaped national discussions on major issues can be displayed.  At first the hacktivist editors tried to defame the group, then tried to claim the group was not notable, and when sources citing CBS, PBS, New York Times were put up, some were deleted!  Delete this page and leave ALIPAC out of the Wiki hell box full of vipers!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.148.22 (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - This organization might be notable enough but based on RS I have found the article should read quite differently. It's an obvious hate group and the article should reflect this. ViperFace (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My god. Those sources don't so much speak to notability as shock jock humor. It's possible the group will one day will be as intensely examined and maligned as, say, the Westboro Baptist Church, but right now the CBS local and Huffpost pieces look more like sensationalist shark bait rather than reliable sources. Best to steer clear of that argument as being one that established notability, in my opinion. jps (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment @unsigned IP: You really need to come up with reliable sources that discuss this organization. It seems like the president of ALIPAC is way more notable than the organization itself. ALIPAC is indeed passingly mentioned in multiple sources because William Gheen has said something. None of the sources directly discuss ALIPAC, however. Currently this article fails to establish notability ViperFace (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - As much as I dislike people and/or groups like this on, I think the article should stay. It should be fair and unbiased. What it should not be is what it started out as: a promotional site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.122.132 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator although I also agree with ViperFace - if the article is to stay it really should read differently. What sources there are - not many - do emphasize the "nativist" (to put it politely) nature of the group.  Volunteer Marek   00:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the IP's accusations about me are, needless to say, utterly false. I have no idea what they're talking about, but since this person is clearly affiliated with this hate group (self-admitted) I don't find it surprising that they're a dishonest, pathetic, lying sack of shit.  Volunteer Marek   00:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He most likely confused you with me. I already replied to him at the talk page. ViperFace (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * kindly removed the offending comments and blocked the IP for two weeks. GABHello! 01:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I read what the IP said: they said Marek "played dirty", so to speak, but they did not say anything that could even remotely compare to "I don't find it surprising that they're a dishonest, pathetic, lying sack of shit" (if there is more I did not see it). I suspect that is libel right there... Cheers, --62.157.122.132 (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's focus on discussing whether or not we should keep this article. You can address your concern with specific users and behavior on their talk page. Meatsgains (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Doesn't seem that notable at all to me. It looks like just a forum community with minimal activity outside the website. Free Bullets (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could not find secondary sources that establish notability for this organization. After an extensive search, all I could find was this piece by the ADL and a few other blog posts. The article cites a few articles from major news sources that mention the organization in passing, but these seem to be merely trivial mentions. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2015 (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.