Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Republic (nonprofit organization)


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

United Republic (nonprofit organization)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Promotional article created and edited by the Online Director and Web Editor of a new organization. The reliable sources guidelines exclude using citations referencing data produced by individuals and entities affiliated with the subject or its creator, i.e., self-publishing, advertising, the subject's website, autobiographies, press releases, and self-published material masquerading as independent sources. The sources used in this article fall within the exclusions and merely serve to announce the launch of a new organization, along with comparisons with others while providing an overview of their plans. A search for additional referencing has come up with nothing to add to the article. Recommend deletion due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of United Republic, its affiliates, and principal partners. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 21:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. My search gave similar results to Cindamuse's. The fact that it's also orphaned lends weight to its non-notability. Should also consider the biography articles linked to within, especially if there is a conflict of interest. Osiris (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osiris (temp) (talk • contribs)
 * Don't delete. Hi. I'm the online director at United Republic, and yes, I was the original creator of this article. I was careful to follow the conflict of interest guidelines. I also followed the guidelines that Cindy posted on my talk page: "People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible." I disagree with Cindy's assertion that this is merely a "promotional article" and the sources are "masquerading as independent sources." I believe the article displays no bias--it simply gives a quick snapshot of our activites, our staff structure, and our origins--but if there are specific examples of bias, I am happy to amend them. I also believe that our sources are legitimate; Roll Call, National Journal, and Boing Boing are all widely recognized and respected independent news sources. The problem here seems to be that an organization has edited its own page. I understand and respect the concerns of editors who are skeptical of this practice. But we followed the guidelines as carefully as possible, we're acting transparently, and we will happily adjust any pieces that the community deems inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morninj (talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I just checked for reputable references from mainstream sources and couldn not see any for this organisation. I would have expected some at least.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are numerous references from mainstream sources. In addition to the sources cited above, here are additional references from Politico and the Huffington Post You'd be hard pressed to find more mainstream sources for political news.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 12:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:19, 29 January 2012 (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.