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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nation One News Foundation (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)

Nominating on behalf of an IP user, who presented the following reasoning Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC):[reply]

In conjunction with the above request to nominate Michael Moates for deletion, so too do I nominate this page. It's Moates' website, similarly of no notability whatsoever, and its entire page is self-promoting and full of citations from the website itself. I also recommend that those who take up these AfD's look into a possible WP:COI for Jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs). since they created both of these articles. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- If the claimed topic is a foundation, then the article fails WP:V. If the claimed topic is a website, then the article fails WP:GNG. If the claimed topic is a publication, then the article fails WP:MOS (what's the difference between its and it's?) Rhadow (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Organization is a 501(c)3 not for profit news organization. Outside of White House press creds they cover Congress, the United Nations, and numerous other events. Notability is established by the sources cited. Also, you can view more information about the non-profit here: https://www.guidestar.org/profile/81-5387073 Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not seeing the substantial coverage over time needed to establish notability beyond your mundane flash-in-the-pan website or media company. It's been mentioned in a few news reports (mainly on the fringe), but nowhere is there substantial, in-depth writing about the company. The references included in the article are very weak - of the reliable sources, i.e. the closer-to-mainstream news sources, most don't mention Nation One News or Narrative News at all (but please prove me wrong with links to good coverage in something that isn't Facebook). Being a 501(c)3 organisation or "cover[ing] events" does not guarantee notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable blog. The fact that USA Today and others may cite a part of a blog's reporting does not grant it notability, there has to be actual, independent, verifiable sources on the blog itself. While USA Today is nice, most of the name-drops are to fringe trash like worlnetdaily or truthexam.com, or to facebook of all things. As noted in the discussion for Moates himself, once this closes as a likely delete, I'd like to draw participants' attention to the White House press corps where the article creator and a friend tag-team edit-warred to include Moates and his organization into the listing, which IMO is unwarranted to to both subject and organization's non-notability. ValarianB (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete excessive name checking with notable sources to create illusion of notability. Excessive use of primary website, unreliable Facebook sources, unreliable tabloid sources. No independent coverage for bulk of text, mixup of sources. All this is because the organization is not notable. Fails many WP:NWEB but more importantly fails WP:GNG because no reliable sources, once you remove namechekingnwith passing mentions–Ammarpad (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Facebook is not a reliable source, and various news organisations citing a news report produced by this organization does not constitute notability, because there is no in depth coverage of the organization itself. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a nn blog; WP:TOOSOON. Lacks reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Request administrator not delete but put back in draft so the article can continue to be improved. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jamesharrison2014: No, the organization is generally not notable. Perhaps it will be in the future see WP:TOOSOON. also if something is not notable, moving it back to draft will not make any change see WP:AMOUNT. Then finally there is very seriou case of WP:PROMO against core Wikipedia policy. The only pages you edited are four and exhibited behavior incompatible with Wikipedia policies. Some highlights:.
• You created Michael Moates, the director of the organization.
• You created the organizations article Nation One News Foundation earlier.
• You then edit-warred at White House press corps to insert the director.
• You then asked for the page to be fully protected so as to save your preferred version.
• Your self-serving request was declined.
• You reverted the Admin who declined the request.
• You continued edit-warring at Talk:White House press corps after your declined request.
• You made another request at RFPP to protect your own version.
• I can go on, but let me stop here. Your behavior suggest totally you're here to advertise and advocate for Michael Moates and his organization. But you can change. You can become WP:HERE and help build an encyclopedia. But all these promotional pages will be deleted, we don't move spams fo draft. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of third party coverage. Billhpike (talk) 20:30, 15 December 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.