Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PUMA Pac


 * 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. Shereth 21:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

PUMA Pac

 * – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete While there seem to be a few notable media references to them ( 1 2 3 4 ) it seems extremely bursty and limited, and I do not believe there is enough out there to make an encyclopedic article. The article as it is looks almost like it would violate WP:NOT. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Care needs to be taken that a decision to delete is nonpartisan. Huge public interest in the nomination/election, including the response of Clinton supporters to Obama's apparent nomination, should be reason enough to keep it, IMO. Note that the article has already been edited (seemingly by a hostile party) to provide wrong info. But if it is deleted for legitimate Wiki reasons, OK. Ninasimonejr (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed, maintaining a neutral point of view is one of the most important principles of Wikipedia. If you'll read the nominator's comment and my own above, you'll notice that our main gripe with the article is its lack of notability as it pertains to organizations, as established by reliable sources. If you can establish such notability, I encourage you to be bold(!) and fix the article. I'd gladly change my above "weak delete" into a "keep" if such sources can be produced and introduced into the article. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete it seems fairly notable at the moment but probably won't be in six mounths time. Buc (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP With censorship running a mock and with the lack of documentation on the misogyny that was thrust on Hillary Clinton during the Primary Campaign, this act of deletion could well be seen as a disguised effort to erase the "evidence" that it happened. The US is ranked 70th in electing women and this national backlash has historic value. By deleting this article wikipedia will participate in the "erasurer" of women's on going struggle for equality,not to mention that on May 31st "Democratic Voters" were given the value of only half (one person= 1/2 a vote)a vote. Injustices occur even in AMERICA! As to notability, the core group met with Presidential Candidate John Mc Cain, it is a bonafide Political Action Committee and has over 80 organization aligned with it. Notability? The origination of the 2008 Democratic Revolt, not seen as notable? Even the Denver Police is preparing for their arrival and you want to delete them? To delete it would be a totally partisan effort to benefit a particular candidate, which is why it was started to begin with...ironic isn't it?!?PEACETalkAbout (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:PROVEIT, and that's all I have to say. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, which remains a generous interpretation given the shades of WP:POVFORK. At best, this warrants a footnote under Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, or perhaps one of the hundreds of other Hillary Rodham Clinton articles already littered around Wikipedia. It certainly, however, has absolutely no potential for long term notability on its own. Debate   木  07:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable group. References amount to: one blog, one broken link, one primary source, and one page that doesn't even mention the group. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 08:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable PAC. There are thousands out there.  They can join the multitudes of people who have ever seen a candidate they favored lose an election.  Funny thing, this happens EVERY election.  Not every candidate gets to win.  Even those that lose have supporters.  They don't get a "courtesy win" because it might offend their supporters. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: For the "prove notability" folks: http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/Obama-Clinton-might-not-find-united-party/1214269996.html Ninasimonejr (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We aren't "prove notability" folks. It is the first pillar of Wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, I'm simply not seeing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per Notability. Also I would like to remind a User:TalkAbout that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Stormie (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability? New England Cable Network is completely independent of the subject. See link in my last post above. The story linked discusses Puma Pac at some length - once you get past the ad and the intros. Ninasimonejr (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the NECN piece is clearly the most significant. But I just don't see it as "significant coverage" of the PUMA PAC. It's an interview with Darragh Murphy which covers her thoughts and goals, but really all it says about the PAC is that it "has already raised thousands of dollars -- and that the money will go toward advertising and spreading the word of their efforts -- to reform the Democratic Party". --Stormie (talk) 06:02, 25 June 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.