Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peoples Movement Assembly


 * 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. Consensus among experienced Wikipedians is that this is an attempt at advocacy for something that is not, in our terms, notable.  Sandstein  18:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Peoples Movement Assembly

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not seeing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The long list of references is composed nearly exclusively of primary sources or non-RS sources that do not attest notability; of the three reliable secondary sources, two (Michigan Citizen and The Guardian) don't discuss the topic, instead covering individual meetings or projects; the Guardian mention, like the Affinities mention, is also trivial –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Very few book hits and no news hits, and of the few references I checked, none of them claim to be a PMA. This appears to be a neologism which hasn't caught on (yet). Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Changes have been made to the article content and references such that there are now a greater number of book and news references. Septima2011 (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Septima2011 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Two of the three books are not independent sources (ie. the authors are affiliated, they use the term "we"), and the other references continue to be trivial. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Responses to concerns re:

References cover individual meetings or projects

As demonstrated in the change in the first paragraph, “Peoples Movement Assemblies are community meetings have been used across the United States”. These meetings (or assemblies) have connections and common underlying approaches but are built upon issues connected to specific geographic areas or themes. While individual Peoples Movement Assemblies have a common framework, they are also unique. As such, examining the individual assemblies provides an opportunity to understand specific examples of the assembly in action.

The following coverage, which focuses on specific assemblies, offers significant contribution to an understanding of Peoples Movement Assemblies as a whole through illustrating specific examples of how they are enacted. (1) The Michigan Citizen, April 17 2011, Patrick Geans, "The People's Movement: Community response to Detroit Works Project", retrieved October 11 2011 from http://michigancitizen.com/the-peoples-movement-community-response-to-detroit-works-project-p9708-1.htm (http://michigancitizen.com/the-peoples-movement-community-response-to-detroit-works-project-p9708-1.htm) This Michigan Citizen article outlines a specific Peoples Movement Assembly. It provides insight into the way in which a Peoples Movement Assembly is being used through focusing on the specific issues around discussed at the assembly and the approach that is being used through the Peoples Movement Assembly.

(4) Inter Press Service News Agency, January 28 2009, M Cardinale, "Evictions High on Atlanta Agenda", retrieved October 19 2011 from http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40950

This article outlines a specific Peoples Movement Assembly. It specifically describes the ways in which Peoples Movement Assemblies fit into other political actions. In doing so, this article provides concrete examples, and, in doing so, deeper understanding of the use of the Peoples Movement Assembly.

Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources

The following coverage in reliable secondary sources focuses entirely on a Peoples Movement Assembly and/or the Peoples Movement Assembly process.

(1) The Michigan Citizen, April 17 2011, Patrick Geans, "The People's Movement: Community response to Detroit Works Project", retrieved October 11 2011 from http://michigancitizen.com/the-peoples-movement-community-response-to-detroit-works-project-p9708-1.htm

See explanation above regarding coverage of a specific Peoples Movement Assembly in this article.

The Michigan Citizen has been published every Sunday on a weekly basis since November of 1978 (http://michigancitizen.com/index86.htm). It can be purchased at 343 locations (http://michigancitizen.com/index107.htm).

(4) Inter Press Service News Agency, January 28 2009, M Cardinale, "Evictions High on Atlanta Agenda", retrieved October 19 2011 from http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40950

See explanation above regarding coverage of a specific Peoples Movement Assembly in this article.

Inter Press Service News Agency has been operating since 1964 (http://www.ips.org/institutional/get-to-know-us-2/our-mission/). It has regional centers in Latin America, African, Asia-Pacific, Europe and North America and headquarters in Rome (http://www.ips.org/institutional/get-to-know-us-2/our-history/). “. Stories produced by the IPS News Service and Columnist Service are reproduced by more than 5,000 print and online media all over the world, in 138 countries. In addition, IPS radio news is sent directly to over 2,000 radio stations, networks and individual listeners.” (http://www.ips.org/institutional/get-to-know-us-2/our-audiences/). IPS-managed web sites collectively generate over 50 million page views per month

(13) ZNet, July 8 2007, J. Rebick, "U.S. Social Forum: The view from Canada", http://www.zcommunications.org/u-s-social-forum-the-view-from-canada-by-judy-rebick

This article is authored by Judy Rebick, who is a Canadian journalist. She was the publisher of rabble.ca from 2001-2005. She was a regular commentator on CBC TV's Sunday Report and CBC Radio. She was the co-host of a prime time debate show called Face Off on CBC Newsworld from 1994–1998. She was also a columnist with Elm Street Magazine, London Free Press, and on CBC Online. (Wikipedia_

(15) The Richmond Register has been a local news source since 1917.

(23) Michigan Messenger is published by The American Independent News Network From the launch of our first site in July 2006 through June 2011, AINN has tallied:
 * 39.7 million unique visitors on sites.
 * 1,728 direct citations of our reporters in newspapers and periodicals.
 * 930 appearances by our reporters on TV and radio.
 * All told, our reporters generated over 960.4 million impressions on TV, radio, and newspapers. (http://michiganmessenger.com/about)

(29) A very well known newspaper, The Guardian was founded in 1821 and by March 2001 GU had over 2.4 million unique users, making it the most popular UK newspaper website. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gnm-archive/2002/jun/06/1) Septima2011 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've struck your vote as you may not vote more than once. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was not aware of that limitation.

Septima2011 (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a distinct term. Apparently any group wishing to use the term may do so. Almost all the references are just to specific meetings of various sorts. The only reference I would consider acceptable is the Guardian, and it uses the term only with respect to one particular group, in the last paragraph. The books seem to be not 3rd party, and the general tone of the Wikipedia article seems to be advocacy.   DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This article seems to have significantly more references than many other facilitation or strategy technique articles already on Wikipedia such as "Unconference", "Open Space meeting" , "Dotmocracy" "Future Search Conference" etc... I think the methodology of the Peoples Movement Assembly needs to be further explained, but the entire article should certainly not be deleted!  It seems that recent changes made today have started to shift the tone of the article away from advocacy.  Septima2011 could you add more content related to the methodology of Peoples Movement Assemblies?COCoFacilitation (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — COCoFacilitation (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete No links to any other articles on Wikipedia, and the text reads like a bad promotional speech.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

StephGuilloud (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — StephGuilloud (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep As a principal organizer and facilitator of the Peoples Movement Assembly process in the US, I am pleased to see this article up on Wikipedia.  I disagree that this article should be deleted for the following reasons:
 * 1) As outlined in the content of this article, the Peoples Movement Assembly process and methodology has been used by hundreds of groups nationally and internationally.
 * 2) While the content of the article focuses on contributions of the Peoples Movement Assembly process, I disagree that it can be labeled as advocacy.  Rather, I believe that the author is seeking to describe the basic nature of the process and where and how it has been used.  The description in this article matches that of my experience being involved in many Peoples Movement Assemblies over the past four years.
 * 3) I am concerned with the speed at which this article has been proposed for deletion.  I would encourage editors to propose suggestions or constructive criticism such that other editors could contribute to the content in the spirit of Wikipedia articles. Because Peoples Movement Assemblies are specifically facilitated by communities that have been marginalized from traditional academia, it is going to get less coverage in academic, as well as mainstream media, sources.  This factor does not make it less credible, and indeed strengthens the argument to include political actions and methodologies like the assembly process on an open source format like Wikipedia.
 * 4) Regarding the links to other articles on Wikipedia, the primary link would be 2003 Global Day of Action, a political action which resulted from a decision made by thousands of people at the first Social Movement Assemblies at the World Social Forum in 2003, which was created in direct relationship to the World Economic Forum.  While the World Social Forum and 2005 and 2007 Global Days of Actin can be found on Wikipedia.   The article for the 2003 Global Day of Action has not yet been created.   You will also find reference to Peoples Movement Assembly on the United States Social Forum Wikipedia page.

In response to above comments regarding secondary sources: As documented widely (Van Dijk, TA, 1992)(Gitlin, T., 2003)(Barker, M., 2008), including on Wikipedia (Propaganda model)(Agenda-setting theory), certain issues are more likely to receive mainstream media attention, while others are not. The likelihood of not receiving mainstream coverage is often related to marginalization. This is demonstrated through the coverage of a wide spread of issues, from the Missing White Women Syndrome, to social movements (see Gitlin, 2003; Barker, 2007).

This is one of the reasons that alternative media exists, whereby, as outlined in the Wikipedia article about Alternative Media, the aim is often “to challenge existing powers and allow for the creation of new, alternative communities that can provide a voice for those normally marginalized by the mainstream media". Although Wikipedia is not an alternative media source, in order to address this issues of marginalization, it is important that Wikipedia recognize other sources of verifiability in addition to commonly recognized sources, such as The New York Times.

This Peoples Movement Assembly article has clearly demonstrated that there are many communities and groups that are using the methodology of the Peoples Movement Assembly (note: further references that demonstrate the use of the Peoples Movement Assembly by many groups were removed to ensure that there wasn’t a tone of advocacy, these could be put back if considered important). While it has not yet received wide coverage from mainstream media sources, the Peoples Movement Assembly has received significant media coverage from important local secondary sources. Peoples Movement Assemblies are, for the most part, lead by communities who have been marginalized from mainstream media coverage. As such, it is not surprising that there has, to date, been limited mainstream coverage of this process. This does not diminish its credibility; rather it demonstrates the importance of ensuring ongoing coverage of such events lead by people and communities impacted by marginalization by venues such as Wikipedia.

REFERENCES
 * Barker, M., 2007, "Conform or Reform? Social Movements and the Mass Media", retrieved October 24 2011 from http://www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/criticsm/conformorreformsocialmovements.html.
 * Barker, M., "A Critical Examination of the Relation Between the Mainstream Media and Social Movements", Global Research, 2008, Retrieved October 24 2011 from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=87610,
 * Gitlin, T. "The Whole World is Watching". University of California Press. 2003. Retrieved October 24 2011 from.
 * Van Dijk, TA,. “Power and the news media”, 1992. Retrieved October 24 from http://www.discourses.org/download/articles/

Septima2011 (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2011 (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.