Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/18by Vote


 * 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 due to lack of WP:ORGDEPTH coverage. RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

18by Vote

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional WP:ADMASQ on a non notable NGO that’s fails to me WP:NGO. The organization lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I would even consider a Speedy Deletion. I searched the user who created the page.  Their talk page showed a Conflict of Interest regarding 18by Vote and per their LinkedIn page, they are the social media intern at 18by Vote.  I do not believe this page was created in good faith. Coopman86 (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although I am the social media intern at 18by Vote, I have no intentions of using Wikipedia as a way to advertise myself or the organization that I work for. Prior to creating this page, I tried to be as transparent as I could by showing Conflict of Interest. As I created the page, I also did my best to format it in a neutral way by not stating any personal opinions and by providing accurate sources that were strictly independent to the organization. I did want to demonstrate the impact that the organization has by including a few of our activities, which again, are referenced using independent sources. I am very open to other editors going through the article to standardize, copy-edit, or add/remove anything if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSchmir (talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , you can’t !vote twice. Celestina007 (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The references provided in the Coalition subsection does not support the claim that the org belongs in Youth in Gov. The first paragraph of the Activities section cites an article which does not mention the quotes "rising voters". This demonstrates careless referencing at best. – Xingyzt (talk  &#124;  contribs) 05:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Here is a reliable source containing significant coverage of the organization. Furthermore, both of the above arguments for deletion are flawed. Regarding the conflict of interest argument, while COI editing is "strongly discouraged" and may warrant sanctions against the editor in question, it isn't a valid reason to delete an article. The page does not come across to me as overly promotional, so the fact that the editor has a COI is irrelevant. As for the "careless referencing" argument, article quality is not a valid reason to delete either (excluding WP:TNT situations, which this clearly is not). Mlb96 (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article not meeting WP:NGO was the argument which is the inverse of “flawed” the potential COI can be neglected. Having said, one source does not doesn’t meet in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them as required in WP:ORG, I fail to see how one source confers Notability for an organization. See WP:ORGDEPTH. Celestina007 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Might I also add that there is coverage in more than just that one source. There are several reliable sources, some of which I have referenced in the article, that thoroughly and independently demonstrate the significant of the organization and its impact throughout the United States.SamSchmir (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There might be some so called "reliable sources" but coverage is not in-depth or significant. Mostly small blurbs and quotes by employees. This does not satisfy ORGDEPTH. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  10:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Only mentioned in one reliable source as a list entry; not enough coverage in reliable sources. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 11:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The organization and it's work has been mentioned in several reliable sources dating all the way back to 2018. SamSchmir (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete fails CORPDEPTH and SIRS. Sources contain passing mentions or routine coverage or trivial coverage as delineated in COREDEPTH. There may be a couple of reliable sources but there is no significant coverage. Quotes by employees or managers of an organization does not constitute significant coverage. Please post sources here that satisfy the criteria for notability, because I am not seeing them. Thanks. Also, there is an obvious conflict of interest ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.