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. Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every Vote Counts[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)

Organization lacking coverage in multiple reliable, secondary, independent sources. The citations to reliable sources are only passing/insignificant mentions that do not establish notability. Fails WP:ORG. Citrivescence (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a WP:TOOSOON. Trillfendi (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears to lack significant coverage in secondary sources. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization has been featured in one news story (https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/09/03/new-student-group-seeks-to-boost-turnout/), and it's been mentioned in all sorts of mainstream news outlets, which is unique and establishes a certain level of legitimacy. Is there an alternative to deletion, such as cutting down the length of the page, at least until the organization is covered in the future? I don't see the need to delete a relevant page for a national organization. Trimming it makes more sense. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage and its one feature is a blog post on Yale's student newspaper website. GPL93 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be multiple independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: This is the second time you have made this statement on a deletion discussion I've started. I have done my due diligence per WP:BEFORE and did not see two independent, reliable sources with significant mentions of the org. To keep the discussion constructive, please source statements like these by linking to specific citations. Citrivescence (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I regard the Wall Street Journal and USA Today as quite independent. Don't you? Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – No doubt in my mind that this passes GNG. It doesn't appear to fail any specific guidelines. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON & Per nom. AD ^Talk 20:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources fall apart on several grounds: the best don't actually discuss EVC at all or only offer a mention. Others are non-independent interviews. Still others are not accepted as reliable (and in this case, most likely non-independent) sources. One is written by one of the organisation's exec so obviously isn't independent. It's a fairly google-unfriendly term, but another sweep didn't pick up anything more helpful than that already included. To certain comments above, I'd note that sources being reliable is only one criterion of being a good source. I couldn't spot a good redirect target, but happy to shift if someone can make a good case. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not (quite) meet WP:NORG, the available sources do not provide significant coverage, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of WP:TOOSOON. If and when they make more noise, then more Wikipedia-worthy sources will probably appear! As things stand, the sourcing is quite weak. The Real Clear Policy piece and The Hill one are self-written; the USA Today report is about voter turnout in general and the effort to induce more people to vote, and mentions the subject in passing; same goes for the WSJ report; and the rest are articles in college newsletters, such as this piece in the Yale Daily News. -The Gnome (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2019 (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.