Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital Athletic Foundation

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 keep. Further discussion on merging can be made locally on the article's talk page. Otherwise, no other arguments or commentary in support of deletion have been brought forward. MuZemike 20:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Athletic Foundation

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

This article is incredibly bias, to the point in which a rewrite would not solve the problem. I have already removed several more egregious violations of WP:NPOV, however it will not be enough. Also, the lack of sources is highly troubling, especially due to its connecting with the whole Juan Cole incident. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 18:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect The article is biased because the majority of the article is not about the subject but rather the scandal. The content should be merged into Jack Abramoff. There is not enough notability of the organization without the scandal to support an article. It should be included with the rest of the information about the scandal and not a stand alone article.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you give the author too much credit. The article is bias because it was written to be so. Why else would the person be "admitted felon Jack Abramoff." The author wanted to make the man out to be a villain, and the article reflects that. I disagree with the merge, it needs to be done over, with legitimate sources and NPOV language. I am neutral on the redirect. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 16:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has POV issues, but seems an acceptable subject for an article. The 'Outcome' section needs to be cut down - some of it isn't directly related to this group, and is more about Abramoff. But the group itself seems notable enough. It's worth noting that the main article on the Abramoff scandal is pretty long already, and we have plenty of articles on similar groups listed at List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations - it would be completely impractical to merge them all into one article, so they're kept separate for length reasons. Robofish (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jack Abramoff, which is the real topic of the article. Nobody cares about the name of a fake charity. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability separate from Abramoff has been established. This article should be the overlap between the Abramoff scandal re funding and how the money was actually spent in Isreal, etc. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2009 (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.