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 delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MGMbill.org[edit]

MGMbill.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Well sourced, but the article seems to fly in the face of WP:SOAP: Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:COI. Edit: Actually looking at the sources, most are either self-published, or self-released press releases. There is only one independent source (college newpaper), so it looks like WP:WEB is not being met with its requirement of mutiple, non-trivial coverage. Leuko 19:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - In order for the article to violate WP:SOAP and WP:COI, it would have to violate NPOV, verifiability and notability. I don't see it violating any of those three (the NPOV is arguable, but then this is an advocacy organization and its views should be stated). "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles." Perhaps it should be submitted for community review; if it fails, then delete. - Tim1965 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a community review? What were you talking about? Leuko 07:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepWeak Keep It appears to meet notability standards. If the issue is the writing, then it needs to be reworked and rewritten. I don't think it's beyond hope such that it needs to be deleted first. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a lot of sources, but are they reliable as pretty much all being self-published? Leuko 19:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to Weak Keep. If only for the CNN article in the criticism section. Perhaps there are others for that area too. I'm going to report User:Mgmbill as a user name violation though. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the CNN article discussed male genital mutilation, but it does not mention MGM.com anywhere, so it really can't be used to establish notability for the website. Leuko 20:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions MGMbill directly, is there more than one CNN article we're looking at? Leebo⁸⁶ 20:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions a "Male Genital Mutilation bill." As far as I can see, there is no direct mention of the website MGMbill.com, or any link between the two that I can see. In any case, it's still only one WP:RS, not the multiple, non-trivial as required by the notability guidelines. Leuko 20:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, which is why I changed it to Weak Keep, as there may be more articles like this. I do believe it's about MGMbill.org though, unless it's about a different San Diego organization promoting the MGMbill. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Addition of Criticisms section would seem to resolve "soapbox" complaint. Addition of CNN, Columbia News Service, CNS News, and British Medical Journal citations would seem to resolve notability guidelines complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmbill (talk • contribs)

• Comment: It's hard to criticize an organization that isn't on the radar. I think most groups who oppose it simply feel that by criticizing the group they lend it credibility. That's a thought, not a fact. So no, adding a "criticisms section" doesn't resolve the soapbox issue. Removing statements about what the group is for does that. The article should be about who the group is (no mention of its leadership or members is made) and what the group has done or trying to do. It should not be a platform to discuss issues that are described in other articles. The article is more of another forum for the group to make its political points and violates WP:POV by attempting to couch the neutrality of the article as its actions. See the Biased writing and Other areas where POV comes into play sections in particular.--Walter Görlitz 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability is suspect, and the history of the article is problematic as a conflict of interest. --Nlu (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment History section shortened to address conflict of interest complaint.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 17.255.240.162 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• A conflict of interest cannot be removed by changing the content, it's based on the user editing. User:Mgmbill has a conflict of interest with article. Editing from an anonymous IP address won't change it either. Leebo⁸⁶ 23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is bogus. It looks like a well-sourced article, but all the links (with one minor exception) don't pan out. Most are to a variety of PR or self-publish sites. Another is a news service associated with Columbia University, which I assume is place for students to practice their chops; it's better than a high-school paper but not the same as a real commercial news source. The sole neutral third-party source is medicalnewstoday.com, whatever that is. That's one obscure source. The "comments by legislators" are essentially form letters: "Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should the Senate consider this issue in the future." == "yeah yeah yeah whatever". I've got to hand it to User:Mgmbill. He'll make a fine editor if he wants to be. Here, he's done an outstanding job of making what looks like a well-sourced Wikipedia article on a notable subject, but in fact is a Potemkin village. Don't be fooled. Herostratus 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: 100 Google hits. The first link back to the site. While the cause is interesting, until the group gets a bill passed somewhere, they're just a fringe lobby group. I would be willing to change my vote if other lobby groups have pages. The interesting thing about this page though is that they aren't so much talking about themselves but rather they talk about the cause they're fighting for (or against). --Walter Görlitz 05:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I labeled it as soap-boxing. And personally, if there are other lobbying groups using WP to propagandize, I would rather delete them all per WP:ININ and WP:AADD#What_about_article_x.3F. Leuko 05:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP) I agree with this nomination. I would welcome more information about the topics involved here, but this is an encyclopaedia, and this BIO of a lobby group isnt of value. If the original contributor wants to further their views, they should be using Wikipedia to construct well written articles about their views, not their organisation. I'll reconsider if more reliable sources about the organisation are provided. John Vandenberg 03:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment cnsnews is not a news service associated with columbia university--it is http://www.cnsnews.com/corporate/history.asp "cybercast news service" a politically oriented professionally-run news service, whose exact sponsorship & direction I cannot easily decipher, but seems anti-Bush administration. Based on its coverage of current stories with which I am familiar, I'd consider it an RS. DGG

Keep The article needs considerable cleanup, but with careful editing could become a suitable contribution to Wikipedia. --Gulalo 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC) — Gulalo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.