Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Civil Rights Union


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

American Civil Rights Union

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

the organization in question has no notability it bills itself as an alternative to the ACLU the vast majority of links link back to their own website Jonnymoon96 (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Jonnymoon96, Hi. Just fyi, the question at AfD is not how well the page is sourced, but whether the organization is notable. You might want to also look at WP:BEFORE. Given how the article looked when you found it, I certainly understand what led you to think that it was inadequate. Cheers.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I ran a proquest search, and a lot of press releases came up as they do with the Highbeam search linked above. But scrolling down, at least on Proquest,  uncovers many, usually brief, discussions of the group filing amicus briefs in political sensitive cases.  I also clicked "books" above and there seemed to be validating sources available.  I did a very small amount of sourcing, editing.  Certainly the article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - A simple Google news search results in sources only mentioning the subject in passing but a search in books pulls up enough to establish notability. Meatsgains (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Double checked on Proquest and Ebsco. Looks good for RS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The article certainly needs a lot of work and relies excessively on non-independent sources. However plenty of reliable sources providing significant coverage come up in a Google News search. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the work above does indeed appear to be a real and notable thing. Artw (talk)
 * Keep - While it would be nice to see fewer self-sources and more material sourced to third-party coverage, this seems a pretty clear GNG pass on the weight of the Human Events articles. Carrite (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability is demonstrated by mention in such books as this, this and this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - It took me 15 seconds to conduct a search that readily shows that the subject has been extensively covered in reliable sources. - MrX 18:14, 21 June 2017 (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.