Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/With Honor Fund

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. Star Mississippi 01:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With Honor Fund[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)

Non-notable super PAC. They got some news coverage back in 2018 when they first launched, but they've gotten basically zero media attention in the 5 years since then. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and North Carolina. Skynxnex (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, there is not nearly enough coverage or tangible political impact to make this a notable org warrenting an article. Stanloona2020 (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes. Notability is not temporary. This SuperPAC may not be potent now, but it had its moment in the sun and generated multiple examples of independent, published sourcing of presumed reliability. Mark as "historical." Carrite (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting mentioned by a few major news outlets right when they launched does not prove notability. The fact that they received absolutely no news coverage once they actually started supporting candidates indicates that they are not a notable player in the political scene and never have been. They shouldn't get a Wikipedia page just because their publicist got a few articles written about them right when they first announced. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:33, 24 January 2024 (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.