Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens for Home Rule

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. Michig (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for Home Rule

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not entirely sure if the article passes muster for WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and may be a case of WP:NOBILITY GPL93 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4 independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. News archive searches show coverage of this group going back at least to the 90s. Knox County based, their basic issue was to oppose annexation of suburban neighborhoods and nearby hamlets by cities in Tennessee. Many years of regional and statewide coverage exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I’ve also previously wondered about the notability of this article’s topic but per the comments above by other editors I concluded that it was sufficiently supported by refs. While local in scope, I think it’s notable enough to keep. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could use a little cleaning up, especially considering the majority of the references are deadlinks. Regardless, even after just a quick Google search it's evident that there is absolutely sufficient news coverage from a variety of independent sources to satisfy the criteria outlined at WP:ORG. [1][2][3][4] Omni Flames (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article clearly meets WP:GNG, as well it had significant news coverage and sufficiently supported by well sourced refs as per other editors above. Sheldybett (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2019 (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.