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 redirect to Morton Blackwell. Consensus is that this should not be a standalone article, but opinions are split between merge and delete. Redirecting is a compromise: The current content is unsourced, but redicetion allows merging from the history if anybody finds sources.  Sandstein  05:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Leadership PAC[edit]

Conservative Leadership PAC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. It's just yet another student political group. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable with reliable Independent sources144.136.101.108 (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Once again, serious political organizations like this BELONG in an encyclopedia. Let me make clear also, I agree with this group about absolutely, literally NOTHING politically. That shouldn't make a fig of difference and it doesn't. Okay, here we go: This group IS LISTED BY OPEN SECRETS.ORG. The group's founder, Morton Blackwell, has a Wikipedia page. Current Executive Director of the group, Adam Guillette, is a CO-FOUNDER OF A GROUP called Tea Party Patriots. Here's the FEC's 2004 AUDIT, for what it's worth. Hmmm, lots of web hits, but little coverage of the group itself. My sense is that Morton C. Blackwell is very definitely notable and that this piece may well best be merged to his Wikipedia bio as a subsection, with an appropriate redirect. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On a whim, I took a look at how Conservapedia was playing this... They do not have a page for either Conservative Leadership PAC or Morton Blackwell (yet), but do have one for what seems to be a related project of Blackwell's called The Leadership Institute. I don't know if that's a valid merge target or not, my sense is that Blackwell's bio would be better. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & a comment OK, there is something odd going on here. There are two sources for this article, one written by Adam Guillette (who's name I recognized b/c it popped up on the WP:BLPN board, and I decided to nom his article for deletion based on WP:NOTE as a first step test before digging into the BLP concerns). Guilette is named as the executive director for this group. The other source is written by Morton Blackwell the group's founder, and a quick scan of the references in his article (as well as a Google search) indicates that he got some media attention for being among the many people who were critical of John Kerry's war record during Kerry's political campaigns. Anyway, it seems clear that there is some circular referencing going on with all of these articles that needs sorting. Definitely not independent. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 16:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that there is a small cluster of articles here with an interlocking relationship, probably written by participants. This is not to say, however, that there should NOT be any of these articles. My sense, for what its worth, is that Blackwell and Guillette are both encyclopedia-worthy political movers and shakers as founder of The Leadership Institute and Conservative Leadership PAC; and Executive Director of Conservative Leadership PAC and co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, respectively. The piece on the Conservative Leadership PAC should redirect to Blackwell, in my estimation. There should be a close edit done of all the pieces in question to eliminate the inherent promotional bias of a self-writer. I don't think Wikipedia is served by total elimination of the above, however — this is the sort of material that an encyclopedia SHOULD provide, not just the stats of every pro baseball player that ever lived and the plot summaries of every episode of South Park or Arrested Development. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Still, shenanigans should not be met with information-annihilation. Keep and fix should be the motto... Carrite (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Morton Blackwell, for reasons detailed above. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Google returns no reliable sources. It might make sense to include some data in the Blackwell article but I'm not sure there's enough reliable sourcing to bother. So I guess I don't object to a merge but am skeptical that there's enough to bother. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "One of the oldest conservative political action committees." Is this true? If so, this is an important historical org and it's article should be kept at all costs. Lionel (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Morton Blackwell. Blackwell is certainly notable, but this PAC simply doesn't appear to have received the required coverage in reliable third-party sources. This and The Christian Right and Congress are the only sources I have that discuss the group in any kind of detail, and even that isn't that much. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:53, 13 April 2011 (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.