Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CalWIN (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

CalWIN

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Reconsideration Effort to Delete Article

Significant inaccuracies continue to be posted in the article based on allegations in a pending litigation matter with the State of California, inappropriately including litigation claims and treating them as facts by claimants/attorneys to the lawsuit.

The CalWIN system has been in production for all 18 California Counties since mid-2006 and currently supports approximately 30,000 users throughout the State, successfully supporting 42% of California's neediest families.

Wikipedia is not meant as a forum for posting baseless allegations to benefit litigation and should not contain anything that is not fact. Posting allegations from a legal filing as "Fact" before the matter has been heard in a court of law provides bias and disregards fact.

This article should be used to post factual information from unbiased sources and not falsities from those with an agenda. Unfortunately this has not been the case and the information changes in the article are based less on fact and more on political positioning f 67.161.163.221 09:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: Inaccurate, biased, agenda driven updates to support those involved in litigation. There is no place in Wikipedia where this is appropriate and deleting the article will provide the only safe mechanism to remove the political and legal exploitation. 67.161.163.221 09:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and recreate when a bunch of POV-pushers (not saying the nominator is not one of said pov-pushers) aren't playing around with it, hopefully with some reliable sources. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 11:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not convinced that the computer system used by a welfare agency, no matter how large, is necessarily separately notable. If the litigation becomes notable we could have an article about that, but it would need secondary sources. As is this is pretty much a WP:COATRACK situation. Regardless, much of the nomination above does not speak to acceptable deletion rationales. --Dhartung | Talk 13:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite to NPOV. The difficulties with this major system are fairly well known, and there should be other references. DGG (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep. The nomination establishes the notability of the subject. There's no evidence that the article can't adhere to WP:NPOV. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 17:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the nominator doesn't really forward an argument for deletion here - instead, the argument seems to be one for firm editing of the article and a reminder to the folks trying to POV-push from either side of the joys of neutrality as well as proper use of a talk page Tony Fox (arf!) 21:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Delete per Dhartung's analysis. Doctorfluffy 08:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - in performing research, I found this entry quite helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.56.109 (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2007 (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.