Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational Response Squad (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Rational_Response_Squad
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a small online community, doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic relevance, and seems to be primarily maintained by members of its own community. For these reasons it should be reconsidered for deletion. Nathan Orth (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep While I largely agree with the description above, they do appear to have had their 5 minutes of fame and achieved notability. And as notability is not temporary the article should stay. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is something I can see going either way.  But it seems to boil down to two guys starting a kerfluffle on YouTube.  Not technically a one-event notability, but if semi-successful publicity stunts equal real notability, then the notability policy is open to manipulation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Independent sources in article provide sufficient depth of coverage to write an NPOV article about the organization. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced from third party sources and eminently notable.  Teapot  george Talk  18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It did make the news, and I came here searching for info on them, so provided references are maintained, worth keeping. Joel.Gilmore (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Has enough references from reliable sources (though need to check for 404's). It is encyclopaedic enough in that it is not in WP:NOT and has secondary sources that refer to the subject. D'oh!.Ttiotsw (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2009 (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.