Talk:Citizens for Social Reform

message: Misou, do you think you can perhaps discuss your proposal for deletion? I'm confused by this: "article consists of WP:POV, the group describes is not notable as one of thousands of semipolitical groups whose program should not be promoted here". Are you saying that the article tries to promote the program of Citizens for Social Reform too much? As for the POV, I disagree, but why not outline your reasons, suggest changes, or make them? AndroidCat 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying that the article is WP:POV in the sense of "A Wikipedian contributor might be unaware that his writing is biased, if he harbors (possibly unconscious) assumptions about the popular opinion of one's area, country, culture, language, ethnicity, etc.". You - a group member of a group I would call "Scientology critics" - put that stub there many months ago just because maybe a handful of Scientologists got together in a club which seems to repeat somebody else's press releases but does nothing else. Since the only ref is their own website anyway you do not seem to know otherwise. When dashing out the article you added a whole bunch of links to Scientology-related pages (using the ScientologySeries box, later removed) and made the whole article a "Scientology article" which it is not. You also did not forget to notice (unsourced again) that some graphics designed used by the group is also a member of Scientology. So, in summary, this article is a product out of the idea that anything Scientologists do is worth an article on Wikipedia. It is not, but this is WP:POV. Misou 05:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of that middle section was added by Wikipediatrix, and there does seem to be some questionable OR there. AndroidCat 15:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And why don't you take it out then? Misou 00:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "AndroitCat", have you been disassembled or what? Misou 00:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The subject of this article is notable and the article should not be deleted.  I was able to find four sources that are WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources within a cursory quick search.  Cirt (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a few sources temporarily as Further reading, I'll work them in as sources into the article itself later.  Cirt (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles that were available on the Web talked about a group called "Florida Citizens for Social Reform". This does not seem to be the same group, although related perhaps.  Anyway none of them said anything substancial about it, just a few instances where it sponsored meetings where politicians spoke and things like that. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am disappointed that you did not even give me a chance to expand the article further and look for more sources, say 48 hours or so, before sending this article to AfD.  Cirt (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Objection to Proposal for deletion

message: It is preferable to collapse the cite templates, because it makes the article smaller, and the page will load quicker.  One of the FAC directors, , has often commented that this is preferable, in WP:FAC discussions.  Cirt (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsed cites