Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign Legal Center


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Campaign Legal Center

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article presents no evidence of notability; db-group was removed per claim that it has coverage somewhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of coverage in gnews. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Name some. A google news search could easily catch descriptive phrases not referring to the organization.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Within the last 72 hours? Boston Globe Politico Fortune/CNN Bloomberg News ABC News ABC 7 Los Angeles. Of course, with the 2012 Presidential primaries in full swing, and this group being a campaign watchdog that's like shooting fish in a barrel. -- Kendrick7talk 07:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep . Sufficient coverage in Legal New Online, L.A. Times, Christian Science Monitor, Deseret News, New York Sun and New York Times to scrape past WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that's probably enough. Could you edit the article to reflect the coverage there, or it will be nominated again.  The article still provides no indication of notability, either in the text or in its references.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I guess not. They all quote the group (except one, which quotes a founder), but don't say much about the group.  This includes to the two references in the article.  We would need to find a source which says something about the group.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the coverage is limited - minimal even - but there's enough there to at least verify what the centre is, and show that its activities draw press attention. For the record, I have no axe to grind here; it bothers me not a whit whether this stays or not. In my opinion, there's enough out there to pass WP:GNG (I've only linked a few of the sources found), but others' interpretation of the guideline may be stricter. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 22:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Damn, this is bugging me now. Turns out my opinion is bullshit and I'm actually wrong. Arthur is right; none of this coverage is really sufficient, even taken together. I hereby drop the stick and abstain; please disregard my earlier !vote. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 22:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused what other coverage would be expected. They are a notable political watchdog organization that puts out research about fundraising and advocates, especially via filings with the FEC, to keep political fundraising groups in check. WP:Notability doesn't require glamor; they ain't getting a six page spread in Cosmo any day soon. -- Kendrick7talk 07:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep plenty of coverage in gbooks. -- Kendrick7talk 06:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * note bene, I've added 7 more refs, could easily add more, but I don't feel like tackling the template at this hour. -- Kendrick7talk 07:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is required is an article about the organization, rather than a brief mention of and/or quote from the organization. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A well known political organization isn't non-notable simply because it's too boring to fill copy in a magazine. I can dig up a dozen refs that explain that it's a non-profit campaign watchdog. What else is there really to say? Do we need a glossy fold out spread of "Ed who runs the copy machine"? It's silly season to apply the same deletion standards here as we would to a garage band while Campaign Legal Center is off filing amicus briefs with the Supreme Court and getting mentions in a dozen different articles about the current Presidential campaign each week.


 * That said, I can add more refs, all attesting to it's un-flashy notability. -- Kendrick7talk 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's wrong. A political organization is (probably) non-notable if reliable sources don't talk about it.  We're not restricted to "news" magazines (supported by advertising, so boring items get dropped).  If you can find a reliable (perhaps peer-reviewed) political science magazine or journal which talks about the organization, that would probably be enough.
 * I haven't checked your new sources to see if any of them talk about the organization, as you seem unable to understand that that is a requirement for WP:NOTABILITY. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. WP:GNG specifically says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Policy advocacy groups never want to be the main topic of a news story; they want the policy they are advocating to be the story. How do you think reporters even get these stories in which you, apparently, dismiss the Campaign Legal Center's role as trivial? The CLC calls them up and says, "hey, look at what Karl Rove is up to" or "look at John Edwards's smarmy use of his own charity organizations." And they get a little blurb decrying it all in paragraph five. Maybe you think all these reporters from various major news organizations, merely looking for filler, just happen to all pick up a D.C. phone book and randomly dial up this completely non-notable political watchdog out of the blue in order to ask them for a blurb of their opinion on something that hasn't even been reported yet? You know, accidentally a dozen times on a good week!
 * Don't be naive, Arthur Rubin. Just because we are a tertiary source doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to the puppet masters of secondary sources. -- Kendrick7talk 03:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That teachable moment given, I believe the sources I have added do attest to notability, talking about when it was founded, who the founder was (just some major Presidential candidate, nothing notable there), the original president, the current policy advisor, etc. No word yet on how Ed is doing making copies though. :p -- Kendrick7talk 03:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the sources added by Kendrick7. The subject appears to have significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  21:52, 30 January 2012 (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.