Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles National Impeachment Center

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. Since the issue is the notability of the impeachment center I checked the sources myself too. one source was dead and the other two were not specifically about the centre but about attempts to impeach george w. The procesmay be notable and worthy of a place in the GW bush article or not but the centre needs specific detailed articles about the centre to qualify. This is not my imposing my view on the discussion but trying to understand which argument has the best policy based position. My view is that the delete side does because the sourcing doesnt back notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles National Impeachment Center

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a local organization that obviously never achieved its sole stated goal, one which is now impossible to carry out. Inusfficient indication that the organization ever did anything other than exist, gather a relative modicum of signatures, and have nice things said about it by politicos. bd2412 T 15:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Per notability of organizations "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." as stated above, the organization appears to lack longevity and major achievements, indicating an insignificant subject. Bonewah (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly has national scope and reliable third party resources. This is not a tree house club, and has specific historical value in keeping the article. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not based on what an organization actually accomplished, otherwise we'd have to delete all sorts of organizations that "never achieved its sole stated goal" but only managed to "exist, gather a relative modicum of signatures, and have nice things said about it by politicos". The German American Bund and North American Man/Boy Love Association are two examples of a potentially endless list of organizations which failed to achieve any of their goals or otherwise do anything tangible, they just created controversy. But that's okay because notability isn't based on such a subjective thing, but on the existence of sources. They seem to exist and some are cited in this article. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you proposing as an alternative that this info, be merged with German American Bund or the other example given? --Firefly322 (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient independent and reliable evidence of notability to satisfy WP:N has been presented so far. The Bund and NAMBLA have been written about far more. Edison (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been the subject of full articles in major newspapers... WP:N just says "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This is more than a trivial mention. This actually meets WP:N rather clearly... you can argue we should delete anyway, but if your argument is based on WP:N, this organization meets WP:N's requirements. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and update. This nomination appears to be part of an effort to "establish an NPOV". Per Raul, it's from a different POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean, but the only POV this nomination seeks to promote is that organizations meriting coverage in Wikipedia must be notable. Anyone can put together an organization with an asserted political goal, get a politician or two to laud it, collect a few signatures for that cause, and get coverage in a local paper. We need to have higher standards than that. bd2412 T 14:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Strong Merge to Movement to Impeach George W. Bush. The one LA Times source means the organization can be briefly mentioned on Movement to Impeach George W. Bush. Delete per comments. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure that will be feasible - per a longstanding discussion on the subject, that article is about to moved to Efforts to Impeach George W. Bush on the grounds that there never was an identifiable "movement" to that end. bd2412 T 14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  - If successful, the newly titled article would have no use for the subject of this AfD, at least in my opinion, anyway. Bonewah (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.