Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England Independence Campaign

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New England Independence Campaign[edit]

[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)

Topic has not gotten ANY media recognition. Movement's most notable presence is a subreddit, "reddit.com/r/republicofNE" with 828 subscribers. Page also a direct copy and paste from their website.

Jun 12 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_England_Independence_Campaign&action=history Edits added still resemble an advertisement... and to add the fact 90% of the sources are from the NEIC itself, one of which is a twitter with 9 followers. --Gabbobler (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article content is 90% quoted from the organization's website, the results of a Google search are the social media pages of this organization and a list of minor secessionist movements in the US, and the website itself is full of grammatical errors and is hosted on a free Weebly site. Not notable. Cran32 (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Discussion was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now. As for my own view, organization clearly has not received any coverage from outside sources and is possibly speediable per WP:CSD#A7. @Gabbobler: If you wish to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 16:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the fact that it comes off as advertising (which could theoretically be addressed if someone cared to), the bigger issue, and the reason I support deletion of the page, is the lack of notability. It clearly fails the general notability guidelines - the article even lists the "independent outlet" which reports on it to be one of the organization's own twitter accounts! Anecdotally, I've never heard of it and I live in New England - while this is obviously not a reason to delete an article, it is an example of the fact that there isn't even coverage or knowledge of the organization at the local level! Jmertel23 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is poor because there is no other, all I can find are the usual WP:MILL-type passing mentions and their own publicity. —— § erial 10:30, 16 July 2020 (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.