Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens In Charge Foundation


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Citizens In Charge Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Absence of independent secondary sources, per WP:ORG. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

has found a source from the Orange County Register that prominently features CCF. I have no doubt this is a reliable source. However the article is exclusively about CCF's possible violation of IRS rules. Would this be considered "significant coverage?" I don't do a lot of AFD work so I'm not sure. However unless other sources are found I wonder how a balanced article would look in light of WP:BALASPS. Feedback requested from AFD regulars. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Schematica found another source, this one from Pacific Standard Magazine, that is about one of CCF's reports. I'm not sure if this counts as significant coverage, but at this point I'm reluctantly leaning toward the keep position. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔   20:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant reliable source coverage clearly exists as reflected by the large number of recently added sources. Subject passes both GNG and ORG. Hat tip to Schematica. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , did you check the sources themselves? There may be some bombardment going on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Dr. Fleischman At your suggestion I took a closer look at the sources. Some are not the strongest, but overall I do think there is enough there to ring the notability bell. Thanks for the ping. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A clickthough of applied sources shows this isn't even close. Meets GNG. Wall Street Journal, NPR, Orange County Register? These three sources alone meet standards for diversity and reliability. In concert I'd assert the applied sources also meet the standard of significant coverage. BusterD (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2014 (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.