Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Organizing Institute


 * 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 speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 05:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

New Organizing Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

With only seven Google News hits, mostly blogs and PRs, and only a few relevant Google Book hits that I could see, there are very limited sources to work with (about this or RootsCamp, which might be the more notable of the two). John Vandenberg (chat) 23:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Huffington Post has a specific New Organizing Institute tag, and the organization has over 8,000 followers on Facebook. N1ugl (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Two of the four HuffPost stories are about RootsCamp; the other two barely mention that New Organizing Institute had involvement in http://866ourvote.org/ and http://2012for2012.org/, which do not amount to much for notability purposes.(see special:linksearch/www.866ourvote.org and special:linksearch/www.2012for2012.org). John Vandenberg (chat) 08:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Non-profit groups rarely have a large number of Google News hits, a better view of the scope is quoted Google Search hits, of which there are 350,000 Jjensenmike (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The New Organizing Institute has created a culture in the progressive movement of sharing best practices and training an entire community with the skills in organizing, data, and digital to win campaigns and advocate for change. NOI is so successful at that that the right/GOP has taken notice by attending RootsCamp the last few years and trying to copy the model with their own organizations. See this article in Red Mass Group titled "Why the New Organizing Institute is The Left's New Death Star Aimed at the Republican Party". Ninasin (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Failed verification test implies lack of notability. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: New Organizing Institute appears in Slate, HuffPo, The Atlantic, Washington Post, and the National Journal as well as frequent hits on Campaigns and Elections and TechPresident. Examples 1) Slate: "A Vast Left Wing Competency" by Sasha Issenberg 2) TechPresident: "Republican National Committee's Biggest Challenge Isn't Tech, It's Culture" by Sarah Lai Stirland 3) Washington Post: "How Republicans intend to close the tech talent gap" by Brian Fung 4) Campaigns and Elections: "Moving Forward" by Sean Miller
 * Delete Based on the information currently in this article, the subject of the article does not meet Notability (organizations and companies). There are some "oppose" arguments above which are making arguments which I feel have nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria., , and , how did you hear about this deletion discussion? Please check out Wikipedia's guidelines - this deletion discussion is not a critique on the good work or reputation of the organization, and it is not clear to me that you understand that Wikipedia has guidelines. Ask questions if something is not clear.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Naked advertisement created by what appears to be a squad of sock puppets. Evidence of notability is thin at best. Sources do not provide the in depth coverage required of WP:CORP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:04, 18 April 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.