Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Move America Forward


 * 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   Keep. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Move America Forward

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article shows extreme bias and is not in accordance with wikipedia's NPOV policy, to an extent that it cannot be salvaged. Mercury981 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mercury981, I see your point, deletion would be preferable in some ways.  Unfortunately this organization looks notable-enough to have some coverage in wikipedia, and the article is cogent, if biased, and apparently well sourced.  I say keep, cut, and maintain the 'neutrality' tag until another editor sorts it out the bias issue.  --Lockley (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lockley's rationale. Tag and perhaps trim with a chainsaw, but it isn't unsalvagable, just very biased in a backhanded way.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 00:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 16:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Withholding judgment at the moment. The current state of the article is, I agree, intolerable, and may take too much effort to fix. If it doesn't get better in a day or two, I will vote to delete in the best interests of Wikipedia, with no prejudice against the re-creation of an unbiased article. Some articles are too damaged to fix, and it's easier to start over. This may well be one of them. RayAYang (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Notable. Verified. Multiple independent sources. Appears engaged in activity that would result in long-term standing. The only problem being the article is not very well structured or written. It doesn't seem to explain the subject matter well. davumaya 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it would be impossible to delete based on everyone's input, *however*, a concensus to "keep but stubbify" could be a reasonable outcome, assuming that is the concensus. Trim it all the way down to the bare facts and let them start over, and likely it would be good to watch the page for a few months to make sure we don't have to end up here again. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 23:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, afds are not a way to deal with content disputes. If you think that the article at present is POV, you can reduce it to a minimalistic stub. --Soman (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - AFD is not for content cleanup -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2008 (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.