Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US-Cuba Democracy PAC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:05, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
This PAC only contributed $246,000 during the 2004 U.S. election cycle. Again, most PACs aren't notable enough for inclusion--there are thousands of them. Moreover, they only function as money channels--they're often not really independent organizations. Delete. Meelar (talk) 16:04, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not opensecrets.org, nor should it aspire to be. android↔talk 16:22, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Save. This PAC is indeed one of many. That doesn't make them unimportant. Note that Open Secrets has chosen to include information about it, something that it has not done for thousands of other. Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia. If anything it can have more information than Open Secrets. Some of the anxiety expressed here is that this article ventures in tabu territory by talking about ethnic lobbies in American politics. If we can't have an article about an interest group with a half million dollars in contributions, then why do we have an article about a nobody political appointee like Andrew Manatos? Meelar you should propose to delete that article if you want to be consistent.
- My position is consistent. Real people who served as high-ranking officials are notable; groups that have no function but to funnel money are not. Of course, you're free to nominate any article you wish for deletion, but you have no right to force me to do so. Meelar (talk) 16:35, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, Ethnic lobbies in American politics sounds like a title for an interesting article. No one here has used the allegedly "taboo" status of such a topic as reason for deletion, and if they did, they would be roundly criticized for doing so, I would hope. android↔talk 16:41, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, opensecrets.org chooses to include information about every PAC that has reported making contributions in the current or two previous election cycles (i.e. 4 to 6 years). [1] I see no evidence that Open Secrets is particularly selective in that regard. I would need more evidence to establish notability before supporting this article. --Metropolitan90 17:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, NN. $250k is a rather small amount of money considering the billions spent on US elections. Radiant_* 17:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete, for same reasons as the Doing_Our_Nation%27s_Service_PAC VfD above. Barno 19:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as in Doing Our Nation's Service PAC above. Perhaps we could come up with a way to merge these PACs into larger categories? ESkog 20:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete See Doing Our Nation's Service PAC. --129.180.1.124 00:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Non-notable PAC vanity ;-) Stancel 01:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are literally thousands of PACs, and, as above editors have mentioned, they're not really entities in their own right. I'd say that this one isn't notable or encyclopedic. A Man In Black 01:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep I don't think it conflicts with anything and is of marginal influence... why not allow PACs to have some reference, they are pretty integral to the political system. gren 06:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable PAC. Megan1967 06:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Quale 06:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A minor PAC, in a country stuffed with them. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.