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 per cleanup and sourcing changes since AfD filed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Party United Means Action[edit]

Party United Means Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Besides the fact that the bulk of the article is an unsourced mess, none of the sources seem to establish the notability of this organisation. I would suggest merging this to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-28 09:12

• Strong delete leaning towards speedy via WP:CSD#G4 We've already deleted an article on this subject at least once (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PUMA Pac). If I recall correctly, that article was better than this one. Additionally, I think the deletion of the previous article, the creation of this one, and the behavioral/contribution histories of the creators of each article are suspiciously similar. I just think it's fishy. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Given previous outcome, current article's editing history of being a magnet for POV sniping and unsourced crap, and on-going inability to address numerous article issues, I recommend for deletion. Similarly, User:Cc83's most recent posting on Talk:Party Unity My Ass demonstrates clear issues of developing this article further under WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - on the strength of the CNN source --T-rex 17:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge - this thing really doesn't pass the sniff test for articles written by the subjects or those with strong POVs about it. Until such time as this effort/group/movement can be properly sourced, it should be deleted or at least merged into the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 article as previously suggested above until such time as it can be given a proper well sourced and written article of its own. RoyBatty42 (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm undecided about notability, but this should definitely not be merged into the Clinton campaign article. The organization is a Republican front group that has no connection to the Clinton campaign. The PAC was started by someone who backed McCain in 2000 ([1]) and there's no indication of significant support from actual Clinton supporters. JamesMLane t c 22:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Concerns regarding WP:NOTNEWS notwithstanding, the article's surplus of unreferenced claims should be enough to warrant erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The page certainly needs improvement and references added, but there is no question that P.U.M.A. is a grassroots political action group. There have been several news articles on the P.U.M.A. - need only to google it - and google recorded internet activity regarding the P.U.M.A. as "volcanic"^[1]. Recommend that the page not be deleted. Also, it should not be merged onto the Hillary Clinton page as it is not officially associated with the Hillary for President campaign. --Xyndua (X) 20:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)— Xyndua (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• come now. Even linking that graph google trends on PUMA shows that the decline was just as steep as the climb for this group. We aren't dismissing their existence. Just their notability. Protonk (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, and someone throw a speedy tag on it PUMA Pac was deleted on the 25th. This article was created on the 27th. It is completely possible that this was a good-faith recreation of effort. Even so, the content is VERY similar and should be treated as an (accidental) recreation of deleted materials. Protonk (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also, the PAc is no longer officially called Party unity my ass and if we keep the article it at least has to be renamed to whatever they filed w/ the FEC. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I put a speedy tag up there. Protonk (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons stated and consider semi-protection of the page in the meantime. I just caught a new user with the obvious single-purpose name of "Notapuma" blanking the references section. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment CSD G4 tag removed w/ the edit summary of "let AfD do its thing". That's all well and good, but the page is previously deleted content under a different name. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is an article in progress. It appears that most of the criticism here is based upon disagreement with the political point of veiw of the creators. I would suggest reading this article before passing judgement: Wikipedia:Give an article a chance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.64.114 (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Multiple reliable articles discussing an organization grant notability generally. I am bemused as to why there are claims they are not sufficient here. I fully agree this article is notable. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made several modifications to the article, including linking the sources with claims. I am even more convinced now of the notability of this subject. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons stated Wenzi (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is a work in progress. The Hillary Clinton page is locked,so there is no way to link the HRC page to PUMA at this time. Political opinions should not drive what gets deleted on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajuncocoa (talk • contribs) 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please understand that as the one who nominated this article for deletion I have no interest in this political debate whatsoever. I'm a Dutch guy living in Switzerland, and I really don't care about American politics. I just have not seen this particular organization have any independent media coverage. There has been plenty of coverage of disgruntled Hillary supporters, and those sources make up the bulk of the article, but this particular PAC seems to be rather non-notable. So please don't see this deletion nomination as some kind of politically motivated pro-Obama hit job, because it isn't. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-2 01:03

• Fox News, CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post and The New York Daily can hardly be described as not independent media coverage. This article is not only about the PAC. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No offense intended whatsoever, but how can someone who doesn't live in North America and has no interest in American politics determine what is notable about the more nuanced aspects of it? As the article currently shows, there are several major news sources that have given specific coverage on them. There's also a June 23 article at salon.com that generally refers to the apparently disenfranchised female Clinton-turned-McCain voters as PUMAs specifically in reference to the group. I'm not sure exactly what my vote on this is going to be this second, but I currently don't see any reason whatsoever for it to be deleted; notability, references, and POV issues seem to be good enough for a keep at this point. 24.76.165.69 (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for now. It definitely needs revision, but this particular movement probably will be noted in a history of the 2008 US presidential campaign.--Soultaco (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this organization is growing and will become increasingly an important factor in the upcoming Democratic convention. --Buster Capiñoaz (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral/Weak Keep notability has been established at a marginal level. I think we are too soon to judge if this is recentism. I am willing to entertain a wager with the two !votes above as to this organization's overall impact in the election, which is likely to be 0. :) Protonk (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2008 (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.