Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outright Libertarians

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. sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH too badly to use them to show notability ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outright Libertarians[edit]

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

Absolutely no indication of meeting WP:GNG let alone WP:ORGDEPTH. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – More sources can be found here and even more here. That is over 2,100 book sources and an extra 51 for news! J 947 02:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those book references seem to be referring to lower-case outright libertarians — not the proper noun, but the adjective followed by the common noun. Others are inclusions in lists. The news articles are mainly mentions, like "Baker is... [among other things] ...the secretary of the National Outright Libertarians Organization" and even some of those are about local politics, which doesn't provide much notability. There doesn't seem to be depth of coverage, even with the recent election. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still enough for me to strongly keep. J 947 17:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a reasonable article about a legit org. The Advocate, vice.com and Nashville refs are enough to establish notability. Station1 (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per snowball clause . Passes all inclusion guidelines. DrStrauss talk 12:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DrStrauss What guidelines would those be? AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of those "sources" are not actually about this organisation. Those that are about this organisation are purely trivial mentions. Coverage of an organisation opening a Nashville chapter is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. See WP:ORGDEPTH which states "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements" AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While it gets lots of mentions, they are not in-depth at all. The organization exists, true, but does not appear to pass WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 13 March 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.