This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
MickeyHuff (talk·contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. ([1])
What actions can be taken to delete this page again?edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Absolutely nothing was done to meet any concerns made in the deletion discussion, yet the article has somehow been restored. Not only is there zero (!) independent WP:RS coverage of this organization, but the article was literally authored by the organization itself and the vast majority of the low-quality sources belong to the organization itself. Is there some kind of appeal that can be made? A quick-deletion process? Because it's frankly ludicrous that an article this poorly sourced should stand. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
One editor added four local news stories and two op-eds by state propaganda websites. Still not notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Of course, I didn't add the state media propaganda articles to demonstrate facts, only to demonstrate the reach of the organization. We can take that paragraph out if you think it is unreasonable, but as far as notability goes, it is pretty easy to establish. Their lists and work are routinely covered in US national media (as the sentence and references you reverted indicates). If I wasn't on my way to work, I would be happy to add more article-length coverage in national media to their work. We're bordering on Kafka here, if I am supposed to demonstrate the notability of an organization but doing so constitutes synthesis. I'll take another gander at the article in a few hours, but I feel like your objections are pretty thin on the ground. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The 'reception' section contains the following: "Iranian State News has also cited their work on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to criticize U.S. foreign policy.[41]" This seems to imply unreliability on the part of PC because "surely if the bad people (Iran) are using it to criticize our military then PC must be wrong". Very shaky logic. This should probably be removed but I wanted to put it up here first Apeholder (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
