Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballot Initiative Strategy Center

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 no consensus. The NYT article is quite substantial, but there are concerns about the author of the article; however, I see no evidence suggesting that her role as a writer at Congressional Quarterly would make her non-neutral with respect to BISC (her advocacy work came later). The HuffPost article is borderline, while the others are mere mentions. DGG's suggestion may be explored in a wider discussion, but as this user was banned after creating this article, WP:CSD#G4 does not apply and I see no reason to WP:IAR here unless we do it for all their articles. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ballot Initiative Strategy Center[edit]

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

I'm nominating because the author user was apparently a paid advertiser in a noticeably active advertising campaign, and thus WP:NOT applies, damned be any notability guidelines or local suggestions, and it's clear this is simply a locally active group and the sources themselves emphasize it, look at how the one 2006 book is in fact a listing and one of the sources is the group itself in a group interview! If we honestly consider that substance, that's not even close to an actual encyclopedia article. I myself had found sources beforehand and all they were are these casual news stories, nothing we consider actual substance for a convincing article. Also, a search at NYT again showed nothing else so it seems the once article listed here is the only existing one. As always, there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP - a biased and disruptive nomination. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Several external links of significant coverage. South Nashua (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Nashua I'm curious how this is a policy-based vote when that's explicit what we consider at such concerning AfDs, including since this was in fact a blatant advertisement by an apparent paid advertiser, and the fact no one ever cared to fix it, shows it cannot, and especially not when we're considering such essential policies as WP:NOT (which is a non-negotiable pillar policy). My own comment above analyzed the sources and showed how the NYT itself (a major political journalism) had no significant coverage of it, as the current source itself is a trivial announcement. SwisterTwister talk 01:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the NYT link, there's one to the WSJ, Huffington Post and Politico. I'm also unclear how you perceive this as an advertisement from an advertiser, I'm not seeing anything in the article's history or talk page regarding this, and if that did exist, why wasn't it mentioned there? Just because the world has given up on improving an article doesn't mean the article doesn't deserve to exist. Also, who is "we"? South Nashua (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage specific to this org. Sources give only a mention & discuss other issues. Nothing in-depth. Article reads like a press release. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group is notable as shown by a Google News search which includes a mention yesterday in the Washington Post and many other articles over many years. The 2007 article in The New York Times already cited in the article is lengthy, detailed and goes a long way toward establishing notability. Nominator's statement that "it's clear this is simply a locally active group" is demonstrably false since the group is headquartered in Washington, DC and is active in states from California to Massachusetts, according to very high quality reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The mention is exactly that: One mention as part of a compiled map, it wasn't actual significant independent news because it was a 1-time mention. Simply one NYT article is not enough and especially not when (1) this article is by an advertising campaigner, which violates policy alone. As it is, the sources themselves are simply named mentions as part of events or similar (specifically because of activities and their plans), none of that automatically inherits them notability. Despite these Keep comments, no one has actually shown larger amounts of actual significant news to suggest the needed improvements therefore what is simply suggested is a "Keep - It must be notable if it was mentioned in a news article". Also, in considerations to my link above, the only news found were casual stories and mentions, not nearly the substance needed. Paid advertising by a campaigner is serious enough but when there's simply no established substance, there's simply nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but allow re-creation Articles written by this banned user should not be allowed to stand, but if an editor in good standing wants to start over, there's no reason not to let them try. DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 5 January 2017 (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.