Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Speech For People


 * 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 (of the softer variety). Daniel (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Free Speech For People

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Pro forma nomination; AfD template was placed on the article by an IP user but no nomination page was created. I will reproduce a comment from the IP on WT:AFD here:


 * This article is almost entirely primary sourced, and its notability is questionable. The sourcing in general is very suspect, which is a sign it isn't sufficiently notable. It's all yellow journalism (Huffpost, Democracy Now) or primary (law cases or self published). Can someone please complete? 2600:1012:B02F:F99B:4476:F577:17B8:8289 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

By filing this nomination, I don't intend to support or oppose the IP user's claims. jp×g 22:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jp×g 22:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This feels like a WP:SOFIXIT situation, but I wouldn't object to a deletion if time has passed and this article couldn't be improved. A deletion now though may be premature. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I initially filed this pro forma on behalf of an IP user who was unable to nominate the article themselves, I've taken a few minutes to look it over just now. None of these sources constitute significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Many of them are cited to the organization's own website; the ones that aren't are either from unusable sources or constitute minor passing mentions. Several sources which appear to be reliable and independent sources do not mention the organization at all. Here is my analysis:
 * The first three sources are WP:SPS from the organization itself.
 * The fourth source is a blog.
 * One of the sources here that seems credible (the SCOTUS blog) does not mention "Free Speech For People" at all.
 * Source 6: Democracy Now, listed on WP:RSP as "Most editors consider Democracy Now! a partisan source whose statements should be attributed."
 * Source 7: Daily Kos, which per RSP is "generally unreliable".
 * Sources 8 through 11 do not mention "Free Speech For People".
 * Source 12 is a passing mention.
 * Sources 13 and 14 are both (again) just links to PDFs on the subject's website.
 * Source 15: Another credible source (The Nation) gives FSFP only a passing mention in an article about the larger Citizens United issue: The successful work by national groups such as Public Citizen, Common Cause, Free Speech for People and Move to Amend, in conjunction with grassroots coalitions that are now active from northern Alaska to the tip of the Florida Keys, is far more dramatic than most of the initiatives you’ll see from the Democratic or Republican parties—which don’t do much but fund-raise—and various and sundry groupings on the right and left.
 * Source 16 is a YouTube video.
 * Source 17 is to the Huffington Post. Per RSP, "the community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics" and RfCs have noted "that they may give prominence to topics that support their political bias and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it". This is not a reliable source.
 * Sources 18 through 24 are cited, again, to the organization's own publications.
 * I do not see any other sources online, and I do not see any way for this article to be kept. It's possible that this could be given a mention in an article on a related subject (like Citizens United v. FEC). jp×g 12:36, 19 November 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.