Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People for Change


 * 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 of the debate was delete, anon IP interventions notwithstanding, there's a strong consensus here. Proto   ||    type    11:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

People for Change

 * Delete nn political forum website. Alexa ranking of 683,268. And, from the information given in the article, does not appear to meet any of the three WP:WEB criteria for notability of websites. Jersey Devil 04:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete same as above. :: Colin Keigher 07:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep : Delete request politically motivated, related to the Progressive Independent Article delete request. Amfortas 14:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Why does every political site AfD have to be politically motivated, what ever happened to assume good faith? Anyway while the article is pretty well written the notability of the site in question is questionable.  While it got to 8mil hits per day on 1 day in Feb it rarely gets any traffic in the last 6 months and was barely hitting 2m in Oct last year which was a Presidential election year where as a similar site was receiving 200mil per day in same time frame. Again as with all nn deletions if it becomes notable the article could be written then.--Tollwutig 18:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB and because it is my goal to rid WP of all progressive topics. - the.crazy.russian   τ   ç   ë  19:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete looks like polispam Jordanmills 22:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Just curious, what is the threshold for notabiliy ? I mean what if the alexa rating was 60,000 rather than than 600,000 , would it make a difference ?
 * Delete per nom Fishhead64 02:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment These online games batting Wikipedia around like a child caught in an ugly divorce are ridiculous. As the site owner I really have no desire to be in Wikipedia if it's going to attract the various denizens of internet trollery who deem it necessary to remove anything anywhere not related to praising the Neocon movement.

God, put yourselves out of your misery and take the People for Change article down. It's not worth a thing one way or the other. Alexa the harlot, who will boost your rank if you advertise with her sponsors, is not really germane to anything. None of this is important, and to those of you who actually took the time and posted "delete", I fart in your general direction. Screw you, and your little internet games, you whiney douchebags! Sincerely Yours 70.32.164.21 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Mike Hickerson, owner, People for Change.


 * Delete Is that even a site? There seem to be 5 active users, and mostly petty posts. The entry is entirely misleading as to the nature of the site. If this entry still exists for historical reasons that would be fair, but then ALL verbs should be modified to be in the past tense (People For Change WAS this and that). Currently, there is nothing going on there of the sort described in the entry: this statement is objectively verifiable by anybody who cares to look. --FairGirl 03:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. User's one and only contribution.  That being said, while normally I know how I'd vote on this, the partisan meatpuppetry of the CU crowd's disgusted me enough to force an absention from me.  RGTraynor 07:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep  For the simple reason that it was good enough for 2 years and relevant to the Democratic Underground page.  Our intent in mentioning this page in our comments was to show how partisan the fight over Progressive Independent had become.  Both sites were created in protest of Democratic Underground's policies and attest to the disatisfaction of Progressives (properly filed under criticism).  If some people here feel that neither PFC nor PI are notable, that's fine, but the criticism of DU remains and the fact that many people, (even though they're still carried on DU membership rosters), have left it to form other projects, remains.  Both instances should be noted under the criticism paragraph of Democratic Underground because it IS criticism.  And as in a printed encyclopedia, when a reference is made to a person, place, thing or organization, there should at least be a corresponding description, in my opinion.  Otherwise you stem the flow of knowledge for which we rely on encyclopedias.


 * Wikipedia is about facts. Facts are that people die and statistics change but the notable events of the time remain notable. When approximately 1000 mostly Dean supporters abruptly left left DU in 2004, taking their pocketbooks with them, that was notable at the time- very notable.


 * Thank you --Tinoirel 4:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Morton devonshire 05:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:WEB, this internet forum is not notable.--RWR8189 07:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, expect meatpuppets to fill up this afd with systematic keep votes as well. --Jersey Devil 08:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Delete" - Few political threads and zero references to Howard Dean on this site - description seems outdated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.145.158 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep (for the reasons Tinoirel cited above). I also note that the constant references to "meatpuppets" are a clear violation of WP:CIV and possibly WP:NPA. Atlant 13:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: The above is 70.17.145.158's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 16:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This AfD nom is politically motivated, a CYA response to defense of the Progressive Independent article.  Moreover, 'notable' is not the same as 'important'.  'Notable' is an artificial quality that can be created with enough money even absent any sort of real value at all.  The advertising and public-relations industries make billions of dollars every year doing just that. (I would add to Atlant's comment, above, by noting that User:Jersey Devil's ascription of meatpuppetry is completely one-sided:  his and other deletes are motivated by high-minded principle, but the keeps are nasty meatpuppetry.  This is consistent with bad-faith political motivation, since it implies that persons urging keep are not stakeholders in the issue, but were merely recruited 'off the street' as it were.) Katzenjammer 16:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the shoe fits.  Someone whose first edit is in an AfD is, in fact, being recruited off the street.  RGTraynor 20:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you maybe check your facts more closely before making such unsupported statements? I'd suggest starting with the definitional article about meatpuppets.  Katzenjammer 21:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Obviously, contributors to this entry are people who are interested in the topic and read the Board in question. Why else would they care and how else would they know? The fact that one's first edit is in an AfD means nothing about where this someone comes from; it certainly does not imply recruitment off the street for disruptive purposes (statement, which, in itself borders WP:NPA ).
 * Could you clarify your meaning a bit so I know whether to jump up and down on you for it? :-) Katzenjammer 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's a startling series of assertions; do you genuinely believe that someone whose very first contribution to Wikipedia is in a AfD voting "KEEP!" (generally with an extremely passionate defense that makes no attempt to address or refute the reasons for the nomination) is in fact not invariably a supporter of the article launching in with the sole purpose of plumping up the totals?  There's a honking big template sitting at the top of the page that seems to disagree with you.  Whether they intend to be "disruptive," per se, I leave to the mindreaders and soothsayers, but it is unmistakable that their purpose is invariably to defend their article to the end -- or alternately, as in this particular case, fight those they perceive to be their "enemies" on every battleground they can find -- as opposed to dispassionately gauge whether the article satisfies Wikipedia rules and guidelines for inclusion.  RGTraynor 16:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see more Delete than Keep votes here, both by first time users. In my opinion, the "Delete" votes are more factual than the "Keep" votes, at least in this case. I agree, some of the "Keep" votes by first time users are quite passionate and kind of irrelevant. So, they are suspicious. But, not just because they are by a first time contributor.


 * Delete Complete mismatch between the content of the entry and that of the actual Board. Specifically, as it has been pointed out above, there is nothing about Howard Dean on the Board. At minimum, the entry should be updated to describe the Board as of 2006. PS: this is my first contribution to Wikipedia, like it is for many contributors on this page. --Shadowfrog 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, with editing: JerseyDevil, a DU member, has argued for the deletion of TWO articles about former DU splinter sites. There couldn't be a political motivation, here? Nahhhhh...and OF COURSE we must judge this RfD "objectively", no matter what the nefarious motivations of those arguing for deletion may be. Funny how Wikipedia mirrors real-life, with Democrats and Republicans collaborating to squelch dissent and alternate viewpoints. Well, as someone who was BANNED from People For Change and strongly disagrees with the political agenda of that site, let me state that although I do believe this article violates NPOV, reads like an ad, and is need of some serious editing, it should be kept. Unlike some people here I'm not gonna let my political bias or a petty grudge drive me to try to censor or silence articles that reference a website or organization I disagree with. The Progressive Independent article has already fallen victim to censorship egged on by vindictive and politically-motivated Wikipedia editors/users, it should not happen again. --Nicky Scarfo 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: So ... stipulating that JerseyDevil is arguing for the deletion of this article solely out of political motivation (and that's presumably Wrong), it is therefore alright for you to argue for the retention of this article out of political motivation (and that's presumably principled and Right)?  Hm, fair enough.  RGTraynor 16:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment, plus the little fact that I am not a DU member nor have I ever even edited the DU article (the only political forum I am a part of is Utopia-Politics which I list on my user page, it doesn't have an article here because it does not meet WP:WEB and thus is in fact by wikipedia standards not notable). Maybe it has to do with my deep hatred of people trying to use Wikipedia to promote their non-notable sites. You could easily prove me wrong, and show notability per web in the article forcing me to change my delete vote but you won't because your forum is not notable and thus you must come here (as a meatpuppet mind you) and smear other veterans users here who have earned their reputations by...you know, actually contributing to other articles.--Jersey Devil 00:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, it simply doesn't meet WP:WEB. These claims of "politically motivated deletion" are a bit disingenuous in my opinion.  If anyone can prove this meets WP:WEB, please do so, hit me on my talk page, and I will reconsider.--Isotope23 14:10, 20 April 2006 (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.