Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groundswell group (2nd nomination)

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. Davewild (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Groundswell group

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

Dubious campaign with no lasting depth or reporting. Appears to fail WP:EVENT (if false) and WP:ORGDEPTH (if true). Tgeairn (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Multiple searches found nothing solid and significant, Books found one for an Indian group and News found nothing relevant at all. Browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary also found nothing. If this gets more coverage and is clarified, the article may be start again. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - organization has received significant coverage in U.S. News & World Report, in MSNBC, in Politico, in Slate, in Business Insider, in The Week, etc. Therefore, having received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources subject passes WP:GNG & WP:ORG.

The last time this article was at AfD was December 2013, and it was closed as keep. Very little has changed since then, and the sources linked in my keep rational were available then in the first AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The problem is all of the coverage, including all of those links above, are in response to a single publication by Mother Jones and all published within the the span of a few days. WP:GNG requires coverage over time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct, please see WP:N#TEMP:

Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

If this was an article about an event, than WP:PERSISTENCE would be required, but this is an article about an organization, and thus WP:GNG & WP:ORG apply.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is met, and Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary applies. I also agree with RightCowLeftCoast that WP:PERSISTENCE (which redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage) is inapplicable because the article is about an organization, not an event. Cunard (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2015 (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.