Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doing Our Nation's Service PAC

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 13:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Doing Our Nation's Service PAC

This is a political action committee that doled out only $156,000 during the 2004 U.S. election cycle (compare to Tom DeLay's ARMPAC, which distributed $3.5 million). The name gets about 260 google hits. Created by User:66.20.28.21, who has been nursing a grudge against Phil Gingrey for over a year now (see this edit, for instance). In short, non-notable--they're just another PAC, and Washington has tens of thousands of them. Meelar (talk) 14:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Meelor is claiming, in effect, the ability to read minds. She possesses the godlike ability to devine the motivations of other contributors. That is quite a trick!

More importantly, this PAC is one of many such groups that should have their own individual pages on Wikipedia. Afterall Wikipedia is not a reflection of what she might want to talk about but about what anyone who uses Wikipedia might want information about. This is not a newspaper. This is an encyclopedia. If we deleted everything on Wikipedia that Meelor thought not worth her time considering we would have a very small body of information. 66.20

These flattering remarks by User:66.20.28.21, who does in fact have over a hundred edits.
- Also, it's he, not she ;) Meelar (talk) 14:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Compared to the sheer amount of money spent on US elections, $150k is pocket change. This PAC is one of meny such groups that should not have their own individual pages on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. This is not a newspaper. Delete as NN. R adiant _* 14:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Seems un-notable in the scheme of things. Rich Farmbrough 14:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not opensecrets.org, nor should it aspire to be. android↔talk 16:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Meelar has made a good case, which has not been answered. Andrewa 18:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Meelar, unless evidence of much more notability is shown. There were hundred of PACs active in the last election cycle. By either media attention or amount donated, this one is among the least significant, and had no known effect. Barno 18:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I doubt that there are "tens of thousands" of PACs -- Barno's estimate seems more credible -- but, either way, there are enough that we'll probably never have a complete list. Nevertheless, it's a noteworthy topic, and any coverage we can get is a plus. Knowing a PAC's size (budget) and roster of supported candidates is worthwhile. JamesMLane 19:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This chart from the FEC shows about 4000, but it's only good up until 1998. Tens of thousands may have been an overestimate. Meelar (talk) 20:35, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. It seems reasonable that such PACs come up in the news and people may come here as part of their search for information. Would like to see more about the comparative notability with other more well-known PACs (or does someone need to come up with a political BEEFSTEW meter?) ESkog 20:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting thought--I'll take a look at doing just that. Will announce on VP when ready. Meelar (talk) 21:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't oppose that either, and it would probably be rather interesting as a project. android↔talk 21:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  - Problem: Suppose a reader sees a news reference to a particular PAC and wants to know more about it. This particular reader, used to consulting Wikipedia (and we want readers like that, right?), comes here and finds no article. Is that because the PAC failed the BEEFSTEWish test? or because no one's written an article? I think that, if the PAC is small, that's still information worth conveying. Furthermore, even fairly small donations have occasionally been the basis for notable political scandals, when a candidate is accused of receiving money from someone disreputable. Therefore, information about a PAC is worthwhile even if it's a small PAC. JamesMLane 22:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hopefully, said user would be savvy enough to head on over to opensecrets.org to learn about said PAC. If not, said user would hopefully end up at Political action committee, where opensecrets is linked (though not nearly prominently enough, and not by name, either!) android↔talk 22:38, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    - If it were up to me, I would keep all articles on PACs which have received even a small amount of coverage in the media. Most of them never attain this level. See User:Meelar/Test of Political Significance for my personal criteria. Meelar (talk) 23:59, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Meelar is right. This is just another PAC. There are millions around the world, nearly all of whom haven't an entry in this encyclopedia. What I would like to ask is how this specific one is exceptional; this was not proven in the article.
Keep and expand, since people may be researching, say, party funding in the last US election and the effect of the Christian Right on politics. While this is a relatively minor PAC, it still could be useful. The use of the word "controversial" strikes me as biased, although looking at the views of the three politicians in question, I can understand how they would cause controversy.

Jamyskis 07:02, 11 May 2005 (GMT)

Delete, not notable PAC. Megan1967 06:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Quale 06:46, 12 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.