Talk:American Federation for Children Growth Fund

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion proposal discussion[edit]

There is absolutely no grounds for which to delete this Wikipedia entry. It provides historical information on a well-established organization that plays an important role in the shaping of public policy throughout the United States. Deleting an entry for the Alliance for School Choice would be akin to deleting an entry for a trade association that has made significant strides in impacting public policy. The relevance of the Alliance to the education reform movement is unquestioned, and this page simply presents facts, not talking points or rhetorical arguments in favor of the organization's views.Alliancesc (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's every grounds to delete, as you'd be well aware if you'd read the Wikipedia policies cited in the tag requesting deletion. This article is a candidate for speedy deletion, as it fails A7, namely that it does not assert it's notability through the use of reliable, verifiable third-party sources. There: two core policies that this article does not adhere to for a start. Easily a candidate for speedy. TheIslander 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questions of Notability or Verifiability have nothing to do with A7. RMHED (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In which case why is your edit summary "notability asserted"? By your reckoning, that's completely irrelevant to the removal of the CSD tag. TheIslander 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have criticism of the organization or its work, please add it. That is what wikipedia is for. However, please do not continue to attempt deletion of this content. Citations will be added, as, I am sure, content from other users. I suggest you look at Wikipedia entries for other organizations that have been verified. This is what this entry was modeled after. You would be well served to understand that the addition of information to Wikipedia is something that benefits the public interest; your continued actions are destructive and, frankly, obsessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alliancesc (talk • contribs) 16:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read WP:COI? If so, you'll surely note that you are not in a good position to a) be editing the article, or b) be commenting on it's notability. I'm considering placing this article up for an AfD, 'cause as it stands right now, it really doesn't pass WP:N. TheIslander 17:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People with a conflict of interest shouldn't "be commenting on its nobility"? I'm sorry, but on wikipedia, generally everyone is invited to make all of the comments they want, especially newbies. Perhaps you should re-read WP:COI, as your statement seems to be a very broad interpretation of the guideline, rather than a quote from it. You have a good point a), but a very weak point b). Fredsmith2 (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing you are technically correct about the legitimacy of a speedy deletion, however a seach for sources:
would have indicated this organization was notable. Addhoc (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, well, now I'm not really at all bothered, because, if I might say so, you've done an excellent job at shaping what was basically an advert into the beginnings of a perfectly acceptable article. Even if that did require the deletion of most of it :P. Well done :). TheIslander 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What have they done?[edit]

After reading the article, I am left with the impression that the only activities of this group consist of forming and naming leaders. Have they actually done anything? Pairadox (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

other than lobby for more school choice programs (vouchers and whatnot) which have mostly not been successful? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to an article about a court case they supported but were not directly involved in Voucher battle heads to court --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the article doesn't indicate any of their activities. All it shows is the formation, the shuffling around of leaders, and moving to DC. If they have actually done anything noteworthy, it should be in the article, not buried in references. Pairadox (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Performing action is not requisite for notability. As the nutshell says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject," which does not necessarily imply any kind of action. Fredsmith2 (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the propaganda either[edit]

I don't like the propaganda-based approach that these folks take either, but having a non-notable tag on this page is ridiculous. Also, we should probably take the COI tag off this page--There's no discussion of why the content of this page still is affected by a conflict of interest. Fredsmith2 (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because the article was created by, and most of the content added by, a user with the name Alliancesc? Pairadox (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alliance for School Choice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this group seems to have changed[edit]

If you click on the external link to this URL ( http://www.allianceforschoolchoice.org/ ) , that URL re-directs to https://afcgf.com/ which is the "American Federation for Children Growth Fund". It is related to another entity, the American Federation for Children (AFC). AFC is a 501c4 that used to have a 501c3 affiliate known as the Alliance for School Choice. I conclude that this group is no longer called the "Alliance for School Choice" but is instead now called the "American Federation for Children Growth Fund". Here is their 2021 tax return: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/522111508 Here is the tax return of the associated 501c4f: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/330627955/202243189349316679/full I advocate changing the title of this article from "Alliance for School Choice" to "American Federation for Children Growth Fund". Novellasyes (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Clint Bolick in Zelman[edit]

The article currently has a sentence that says, "Clint Bolick, who was part of the legal team that argued the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris school voucher case before the U.S. Supreme Court..." in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. I am currently reading the book, The Death of Public School, by Cara Fitzpatrick. It says about Zelman, "Clint Bolick, however, would sit this one out. It was a severe disappointment for Bolick after roughly a decade of courtroom arguments but not completely unexpected...The state of Ohio wanted to take the lead in one of the most prominent church-state cases in years." I interpret this to mean that while behind the scenes, he might have had some role in preparing the case, but I don't think it is reasonable to say, given what Fitzpatrick says, that he was "part of the legal team" arguing Zelman since I interpret that to mean "sitting at the lawyer's table while the case is being argued. Novellasyes (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Federation_for_Children_Growth_Fund&oldid=1204799917"