Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands

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. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands

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

Doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines and seems to be NOTNEWS and for me doesn't pass encyclopedic muster. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclosure: article creator). This PAC has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources. In addition to the links that appear within the article, there are others posted on the article's talk page. Yes, the article needs to be expanded, but notability is not the problem here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might have received lots of coverage but that doesn't make it a notable organization under the guidelines. Not every company/org makes it to Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but as Rockypedia says below, the organization is the subject of several articles and not just mentioned in passing. There is plenty of material for expanding this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say deletion is an overreaction at this point. There's a lot of coverage in a lot of reliable secondary sources. The PAC is the subject of many of the articles, and not just mentioned in passing. As such, I believe it passes notability guidelines. Rockypedia (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in reliable sources suffices to establish notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sourced do cover it, so it must be notable. Dimadick (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I has received coverage in various sources at different times which meets the minimal threshold of notability. TFD (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Sir Joseph that this article should be deleted, but for slightly different reasons. A quick Google search shows coverage for this organization, but almost all the coverage is from mid-June, in which the organization made a video discussing Trump's "tiny hands". Six of the sources listed in the article are from that timeframe. As for the other three sources, two are regarding a name change (with the Washington Post mention trivial in nature) and the last one meets our guidelines for "significant coverage". But from the looks of it, the coverage of the video is not news and the rest of the sources available doesn't quite state that this organization meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I don't predict any lasting notability as all coverage that it is getting is because of all the media hype surrounding Trump. Prevan (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see sources from March, June and July in the article itself.--TMCk (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article easily passes WP:GNG. It's received coverage from The Guardian, The Washington Post, USA Today and many other sources. Those websites have always been considered reliable sources which help to show notability. As for Prevan's point, notability is not temporary. Whether or not the organization is still receiving coverage is irrelevant, because once it's been shown to meet the notability guidelines, it will always meet the notability guidelines. Omni Flames (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass notability guidelines as an organization. At the very least, the article on this PAC should describe the organization as satire or a prank, as that is how most NPOV sources describe it, e.g. Best Political Pranksters. Also, the article would need to disclose the PAC's objective, which is merely for Donald Trump to reveal the measurements of his hands.--FeralOink (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC) (Afterthought: Why is this article tagged as a BLP (Category: BLP)? I just noticed that on the talk page for the article!)[reply]

Comment I believe you have it backwards - Best Political Pranksters is hardly what I'd call a WP:RS, while most reliable sources describe the PAC as a PAC. In fact, another reliable source here treats the subject quite seriously and notes that the PAC has begun to run anti-Trump ads on television. If they're taking donations and running ads on TV, I'd say that's a real PAC that goes beyond a prank, regardless of how it may have started. Rockypedia (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though very reluctantly. This article is a BLP violation waiting to happen, and I don't really believe it to be very encyclopedic, but notability according to our guidelines has been firmly established. I'm WP:INVOLVED in American Politics, but I strongly encourage other admins to keep an eye on this one assuming it is kept. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not encyclopedic.CFredkin (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic but related to an American presidential candidate and covered by numerous reliable sources? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being covered in the news doesn't make it notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) Rockypedia (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to a sourced sentence at Stop Trump. Reason is that this political equivalent of a BLP1E is, as Nom states, not encyclopedic. Yes, it happened, but even the sources cited describe it as a "prank." Granted, it's clever prank, the video isn't LOL funny, but it is clever. But there is just not enough here to warrant keeping. Except possibly as a redirect/merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that inclusion in the Stop Trump movement article is a good compromise, in order to preserve documenting the existence of the organization without devoting an entire article to it.--FeralOink (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Omni Flames. This has enough reliable sources for it to be considered notable. Henry ^TALK 21:34, 21 July 2016 (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.