- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Groundswell group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Conspiracy theory. "exposed" ... "conservative cabal" Does not appear to have lasting notability, MSNBC for example does not seem to have any other coverage other than the single article. (By their topics system) OSborn arfcontribs. 02:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC): Keep. This is not "conspiracy theory" in any way. That Groundswell exists is not in question--the members named it themselves, and they were clear in their goals and methods as well as in keeping the group secret. The group members included several major players in Washington DC. The article has numerous citations to legitimate sources Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article isn't the best written, and the sources are in a specific time-frame, but I think the amount of media coverage, in combination with the individuals who are a part of the group, make it notable. I know that notability is not inherited, but I think the main reason it got a decent amount of media coverage at the time was because of its members, and it seems to me a group of notable individuals getting together to shape policy, and that had substantial media coverage when its existence was found out, is notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But, as you acknowledge, the group does not receive notability simply from its members. It needs to have some sort of lasting "claim to fame" - as far as I can tell, this is not even a famous group of famous people. To give an example, if a group of celebrities had a party, and there was some reporting on that party, would the party be notable? No, because the party had no lasting significance. I believe this is a similar situation (with the added problems of casting negative aspersions on people.) OSborn arfcontribs. 00:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources exist that gave it significant coverage in more than one outlet, and shows that it garnered significant media attention. As such, I feel that it meets the criteria for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This isn't even close. The organization is covered in detail by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Meets both criteria of WP:NGO: national scope and verification by multiple third party RSs. BusterD (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2013 (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.