Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vets For Freedom Action Fund


 * 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 & cleanup. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  19:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Vets For Freedom Action Fund

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability, this article seems to exist solely to promote this organization and its adopted viewpoint. The "sources" are either the organization itself, or editorials produced by its membership about political issues (not about the organization itself). Wikipedia isn't the place to push an agenda or promote a non-notable political group. /Blaxthos 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. No reputable source to back up notability. Main contributers Jason Lynn and Ellie Cy seem to be single purpose contributers. --Work permit 02:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, nom has it - rather spammy. We are not a means of promotion. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ATT and WP:ORG. Not only is this not attributed, from searches I'm not sure if it's attributable. -- Charlene 06:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails notability according to the various guidelines.  Jody B   talk 11:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep if article gets major cleanup and becomes NPOV. Corpx 16:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The version of July 13, 2006 shows a non-spammy version of this.  As for "not attributed", this isn't exactly a made-up group; there are plenty of references to it by other than the founders - see, for example, this page by SourceWatch.  I agree that the article is not NPOV, but that is NOT a criteria for deletion.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but please remove non-reliable secondary sources: blogs and other external jumps that do not describe the subject. I found some newspaper articles though that I consider them reliable. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has sufficient notability. -- Randy2063 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The only thing this COI-ridden piece manages is to at least convey some sort of notability. However, the article requires a complete rewrite. I expect the revised version to be less than half the current length. nadav 00:15, 11 May 2007 (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.