Talk:American Leadership Project

Sources; not CSD

Entire article about the group in today's Washington Post per sourcing. Given that, I fail to see how this is "blatant advertising." -- Kendrick7^talk 18:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also an article in today's Los Angeles times now added. Whoever thought this met WP:CSD has a way twitchy trigger finger, imo. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reasoning

Hi. The way the article is currently written, it fails WP:NPOV, and comes across as advertising.Runnynose47 (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying exactly what the sources say; not much else I can do per WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Follow the URL - I promise you this isn't an insert. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I completly see your point, but I still feel that this one line article is a canidate for deletion. With your permission, I will remove the speedy tag on the article, and AfD the page. This way, a consensus from uninvolved parties can determine if this article should remain. Thanks, Runnynose47 (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

While you are correct that the article is a WP:STUB, the article doesn't meet the WP:AfD guidelines (WP:DEL) given the sourcing, specifically WP:N i.e. there multiple sources independent of the subject. I'm not going to give you permission to waster other editors' time, but of course you don't really need my permission, so do as you like. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The third opinion below seems reasonable to me. I did not mean to offend, I just felt justified in my actions and comments. Can we agree that this article needs a little rewriting, per the opinion below, to give it a more NPOV? Thanks,Runnynose47 (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied below. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

It seems a bit premature to request a third opinion at this time; I don't see that an impasse has occurred. In any case, here are my opinions:

• AfD is inappropriate. The subject has sufficient notability. You can certainly try it, but I think an AfD proposal would fail.
• Why not propose ways to make it more neutral? The article is currently just one sentence. That shouldn't be too hard to fix. How about splitting it into two sentences and rephrasing like this:
  The American Leadership Project is a independent 527 group of Hillary Clinton's major financial backers formed in February 2008. The group formed for the purpose of airing television advertisements that promote Clinton as being more qualified than Barack Obama to address problems with the U.S. economy."

That seems more neutral, doesn't it? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess I see what the NPOV problem is. Not offended by any of this Runny, but not a mind reader either :-) The problem with the above is that would be accusing the group of an illegal activity, promoting Clinton (a presidential candidate, obviously) as a 527 group. Promoting her message is legal however. It's complicated, unfortunately which is why I wanted to just stick with what the sources said.... -- Kendrick7^talk 21:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How about :
The American Leadership Project is a independent 527 group of Hillary Clinton's major financial backers formed in February 2008. The group formed for the purpose of airing television advertisements that, "promote Clinton as being more qualified than Barack Obama to address problems with the U.S. economy."" or something along those lines with a direct quote from the article? I just feel that something so weighted should be directly quoted from a source. Will that work?Runnynose47 (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! I'd say consensus reached. Do the honors and remove the contested tag. Runnynose47 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Leadership Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303190235/http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C30000871 to http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C30000871

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)