Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majority Action

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. Consensus seems to hold that sufficient coverage is now demonstrated. ~ mazca ^t/c 21:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majority Action

Cited sources do not demonstrate notability Mblumber (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The topic is covered directly in detail by NPR [1] and the The Spokesman-Review [2]. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't think it qualifies for Speedy Keep on that basis - surely that is a primary source? Does this orgaisation meet WP:ORG requirements with multiple secondary non-trivial coverage, etc? Chzz ► 03:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How are those primary sources? They are two examples of non-trivial coverage in independent secondary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the sources linked above and plenty more found by a Google News archive search such as [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe there is some notability but the artilce right now is a copyright violation of the source. I think it should be kept at least after being completly rewritten to meet minimum Wikipedia standards (including proper way of references). Rsolero (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From which source is the text copied? --Explodicle (T/C) 17:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 05:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poorly written stubbly bit but vertainly a good article can be grown here. using the wayback machine nets us these four archive pages which can help inform on what they did. Further digging, bacause it's a horrid search phrase will need to combine other keywords to sort out the dreck and misshits. But there is enough to be found to build on. -- Banjeboi 23:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of news coverage of this. Listing all their political ads they created, and other activities, would be a nice addition to the article. Dream Focus 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage. I found some new sources and added them. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2009 (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.