Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flex Your Rights


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Flex Your Rights

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This organization does excellent work, and produces YouTube videos which are both entertaining and educational. You should watch them.

But the organization's Wikipedia article has been edited by a number of COI editors, and it reads like an ad. I did a Google News Archive search and am not convinced that they meet our stringent general or organizational inclusion criteria.

True, I did find the Washington Post article "'10 Rules for Dealing with Police' seeks to teach constitutional rights". But that's a film review and includes very little coverage of the organization itself. Plus, that's the only review I found of that film.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, certainly a good deal of secondary source coverage on this noteworthy organization as related to human rights and the United States Bill of Rights. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, I don't know about that...  but it's got two whole sources now.  I did what I think were fairly extensive Google searches, and there just isn't all that much out there.  Yeah, you'd think there'd be more.  But there isn't.  As far as primary sources go, there are a few more out there, such as this piece on Gizmodo and endorsements by organizations, such as the NAACP.  I don't feel very strongly either way, though.  Objectively, they probably are too low-profile to be kept, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looks good as it is.  NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 02:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources seem sufficient. Its YouTube channel is successful, but it also seems to receive varying levels of mention in reliable sources. Additionally, its executives, representing the organization, seem to frequently write articles for reliable sources: Gizmodo, AlterNet.org, Reason... --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  22:19, 12 December 2013 (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.