Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bureaucrash (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrash

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bureaucrash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete this was deleted before and now it's back in slightly different form but the same group with the same lack of notability. Sourced primarily to youtube and group's own website. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I tagged this for rescue, but looking at the history this does not even seem to have been necessary; the nominated version contained this ref, which is a three page article exclusively about the subject in a mainstream, high-circulation newspaper, satisfying beyond doubt the general notability guideline. The other sources added, mentioned by Michael Q. Schmidt above, only underline this. As SoWhy notes, issues with the article could easily have been rectified through normal editing. I notice that the article was not tagged for notability nor was a discussion about notability initiated on the talkpage; either of these steps would have negated the need for a deletion discussion. The nomination is only a critque of the past and then-present state of the article, and did not address it's potential. I would urge the nominator to follow WP:BEFORE and use AfD as a last resort in future. Skomorokh 23:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the 16 references, I see 3 YouTube links, 4 links to the groups' websites, 6 trival mentions ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), 1 blog ([7]), 1 book I can't check and 1 proper article at the Washington Times. I think it fails WP:NOTE, not enough significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources has been shown.--Sloane (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With respects to Sloane, per the requirements of WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive", and "the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred", ignoring the in-depth coverage for a moment, the "mentions" are less than significant but still slightly more than trivial listings. Both significant and minor have been provided. Addressing the SPS or Youtube as the WP:Verifications as required by WP:ORG are matters for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple, one sentence mentions are almost per definition trivial. Nobody is saying anything about sources having to be exclusive but they do have to provide a certain level of coverage to prove notability. And again, there's only a single proper source here. WP:NOTE and WP:WEB require multiple.--Sloane (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little misleading, Sloane; the wording of WP:NOTE is "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." So your stance is based on personal preference rather than requirement. The point of the guideline is that the sources have to add up to a decent-length fully-verified article, which is what has been achieved here. Regards, Skomorokh 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, guidelines are clear. Multiple significant sources are required. Here, we have only one significant source. If we had two, maybe you would have had an argument. But seeing as we only have once, it's clear this subject fails WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...I just quoted you the guideline, which said multiple sources were "preferred" not "required"; what gives? Skomorokh 21:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Sources, as in the plural of source. Also, further: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic."--Sloane (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) Mr, Sloane, in taking a deeper look at those "mentions", I find a collective body that combines to show notability in actions and in news coverage in relationship to what is being reported overall and by whom. In the many of the cites you call trivial, the organization is spoken of directly or in in context to the greater topic being reported:
  1. Dallas News, in an article about reaction to Michael Moore's Sicko, "...Bureaucrash, an international activist group based in Washington D.C., along with members of the Americans for Prosperity, and the Moving Picture Institute showed up at a D.C. premiere carrying signs saying, 'Socialism Kills,' and 'Guaranteed health care is a Guaranteed Failure'"
  2. The Salt Lake Tribune, in a realted article about public reaction to Sicko, "CEI is supporting a hip-looking website called BureauCrash, which boasts of an "international network of pro-freedom activists works to change the political ideology of our generation through creative activism." The group staged a protest outside the Washington, D.C., premiere of "Sicko," and aligned themselves with two other groups - The Americans for Prosperity Foundation (which is closely affiliated, according to SourceWatch, with the anti-feminist Independent Women's Forum) and the Moving Picture Institute's FreeMarketCure.com website." and "...The funny thing is that CEI has made such a name for itself as a corporate shill that it has to create BureauCrash - with its cool Trotskyite graphics and YouTube-like video links - to hide CEI's hand in pushing its corporate message. You know you're failing as a front group when you have to form your own front group."... a bit more than a trivial "one sentence"
  3. The Berkeley Daily Planet, in an article about protests at a Libertarian conference, "Nearby, Libertarian counterprotesters, calling themselves Bureaucrash, held signs calling for 'free speech'"
  4. BBC News, in an article about Libertarians and the G8 conference, "As usual, the libertarians at Samizdata take a different approach, trying to shout above 'the din of idiotarian drum banging' to emphasise the role played by corrupt African states and arguing for removal of African government for solving African problems, and showcasing a provocative poster from the anti-statists Bureaucrash which features a starving child with the slogan "Socialism Kills - Free Markets Feed"
  5. Wall Street Journal, in an article about John McCain,"Later Mrs. Gramm went to the Mercatus Center in suburban Virginia, a thundering fortress of deregulatory theory. And here we glimpse another promising avenue of any investigation of the laissez-faire faith: the market ideology industry in Washington. Any proper assessment of this industry would also include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, FreedomWorks, the American Enterprise Institute, and the minor stars in the libertarian firmament, including my favorite, Bureaucrash, where punk rock meets the gold standard."
  6. "Drugs into Bodies" ISBN 0275983250, speaks of the group's emergence.
  7. "Thinker, Faker, Spinner, Spy" ISBN 0745324444, speaks of their "mission" when writing about corporate spin.
  8. "Iain Dale's Guide to Political Blogging in the Uk" ISBN 1905641621 includes them.
  9. And of course, The Washington Times provides an in-depth article about the organization and its founder.
So in my own seeing that this organization is definitely getting world-wide public recognition for their actions, both positive and negative, as establishing notability for the article, I will have to politely disagree with you. Again, the article would benefit from cleanup, but its deletion does not improve wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 1-single sentence, 2-blog, 3-single sentence, 4-single sentence, 5-single sentence, 6-single paragraph, 7-single sentence (barely), 8-single sentence, 9-sole proper article. So yes, only one proper source. No notability established.--Sloane (talk) 00:58, 18 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bureaucrash_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1086371027"