Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coalition For A Prosperous America

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Coalition For A Prosperous America


This draft does not make a credible claim of significance. It reflects only the foundation's own position and says nothing about what independent sources have said. The draft is promotional, but G11 was declined. The admin said to consider moving to mainspace or to try MFD. It definitely isn't suitable for mainspace, and I disapprove of the idea of moving anything from draft space to mainspace for AFD. So we can go for MFD.

If anyone wants to establish notability in the next seven days, they are welcome to do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not suitable for mainspace, and mainspacing so as to list at AfD is disruption.
 * I concur with the G11-decline per my line between
 * [A] "commercial" and "for-profit" promotion, and
 * [B] "non-profit" socially motivated organisational promotion,
 * where a a careful source analysis (of the top 3 references if lots are supplied) reveals the sources are not independent (especially including covert advertising), or not reliable, or not secondary source, and promotional not scholarly, and entirely unsuitable for basing an article on.
 * For this draft, the source analysis finds it unworthy, and thus deleteable per WP:TNT, if not straight G11.
 * I note that some have disagreed with me on excluding [B] from G11, but I consider the discussion unfinished.
 * I think there is some chance that this topic could be subject to suitable sources, maybe given more time, and that the existing content could one day see mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what User:SmokeyJoe has written. First, I do not fully agree with the A/B distinction, because sometimes "non-profit" promotion can be just as blatant as profit-making promotion.  I can see that the admin may have made such a distinction, which may be why they declined the G11.  I have nominated many non-profits for G11, and most of them have been deleted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand whether SmokeyJoe is saying to Keep or to Delete. It appears to be mostly an argument for Delete, but is hedged in such a way that I don't know.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the non-deleting admin's comment was bizarre, because I find the idea of moving something to mainspace in order to delete it just plain wrong and offensive. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So what is User:SmokeyJoe saying? Do they want to delete the draft, or to adopt it, or to preserve it in the hope that someone will rescue it, or what?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You understand well enough. I am hedging.  It probably should be deleted, but there is a chance it could be notable.  I'd like to read what others say.  The one concrete thing I did say was that I agree with the G11 decline, while noting that others might reasonably support it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This organisation seems to have been created almost two weeks ago, and has pushed its agenda, getting published in some media since then. I am not finding any commentary on the organisation.  I see that some mentions have been introduced into some mainspace articles.  These should be investigated.  It is promotion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Coalition for a Prosperous America" was added to American Corn Growers Association 16:39, 8 January 2010 by .  So, it is a years old organisation.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Their website includes old stories as old as October 25, 2016 (http://www.prosperousamerica.org/rational_nationalism). They look like a 1-4 person band of a lobby organisation, they do paid speaking, they claim to represent an awful lot of american producers, and they claim credit for a lot of political decisions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/ian-fletcher Here, https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/09/01/in-response-to-ian-fletcher/#23f8bc781637  is some commentary on one of their staff.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It's an advocacy organization of unclear influence and unclear reputation. It's name is dropped in authorship of articles.  I can find no sign of evidence that they meet WP:ORG.  As an overtly political organisation, I think Wikipedia needs to take care not to be seen as censoring political opinion.  I would prefer to see it tagged as "rejected" due to being not WP:Notable.  It is possible that independent reliable secondary sources exist, but I can't find any.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The site lists 16 people on the board of directors, 4 staff, and 7 on the advisory board (http://www.prosperousamerica.org/who_we_are), so it's more than 1-4 people. Based on their actions and articles, it is clearly a political advocacy and lobbying group.Nosecohn (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I found them too on the organisation's website. I can not find most of them independently sourced as associated with he organisation.  I definitely cannot find reviews of the organisation.  I can only find a few mere mentions, not counting the organisations own articles.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems odd to say moving this "to article space may be appropriate, or try [a] miscellany for deletion discussion." Something suitable for the mainspace is not a good candidate for MfD, and vice versa. I am curious about your line of thinking on the matter. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 13:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you meant something like "I think this subject may be suitable for the mainspace. If you do not, then feel free to take this to MfD"? — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 13:43, 15 September 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.