Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surge activism


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Surge activism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear WP:NORG failure. None of the sources in the article are significant coverage - the Miami one simply name-drops them, there's brief coverage of a petition they launched, the other sources are WP:PRIMARY or don't mention the organisation at all. A WP:BEFORE search brought up nothing I could see that would help it get over the tough WP:NORG hurdle. SportingFlyer  talk  06:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Surge is an international grassroots animal rights organization. There are marches and events around the world associated with this organization. It is notable. Steven02511 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You say it's notable, but do you have any reliable sources unrelated to the organisation which significantly covers the organisation? SportingFlyer  talk  12:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, if not for notability, then for being irretrievably promotional and partisan. SpinningSpark 19:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You seem to see it as notable, and I agree, but you feel the article is still "irretrievably promotional and partisan." I agree that originally it was so, but after deleting the, it is in better shape. As editors, we have the power to reshape it because nothing that deserves WP's attention should be "irretrievable." Whatever is left that may read as "promotional and partisan" can still be "clean out," if you help identify the culprits. This course of actions would show that we are not ourselves lazy or partisan for trying to delete rather than improve an article about what seems as a clearly notable (or notorious) organization with significant enough coverage. Den... (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I'm far from convinced that it is notable. Organising a few small demos and getting in the news is WP:NOTNEWS.  Where is the in-depth discussion of the organisation itself as required by WP:NORG? SpinningSpark 17:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:PROMO for non notable org. No SIGCOV found.  fails WP:ORG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep As explained in Winters' AfD (concerted delete efforts do not mean concerted keep effort.), the evidence for notability are clear. To rehash a few: The Daily Telegraph: here, here, and here. The Guardian: here. The Huffingtonpost: here. Evening Standard: here, here and here. Montreal Times: here. Den... (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen almost all of those sources (one or two are behind paywalls), and none of those sources come close to passing WP:NORG. SportingFlyer  talk  07:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If we apply the guidelines criteria in the table here, and expand on the samples of three sources, this is what we have:

1-   Multiple coverage: check ✅ 10 major newspapers

2-   Independent coverage: check ✅ All of them

3-   Significant coverage: check ✅

Three Samples:

a.    Telegraph:

i.     Mentioned 3 times

ii. Takes up about a third of the entire news

iii. organization with the most responsibility, more coverage than PETA

b.    Guardian (same news event)

i.     Mentioned once

ii. A paragraph of coverage

iii. But it is the main catalyst of the event:

"“Ed Winters, the co-director of Surge, which orchestrated anti-fur demonstrations that attracted more than 250 people in September, a rise from 120 the previous catwalk season and 25 in September 2016, said “we expect those numbers to continually rise””"

c.    Huffington Post

i.     Mentioned twice

ii. Takes more than half of the news

iii. The news is all about the event that the group organized

4-   Reliable sources: check ✅

5-   Secondary sources: check ✅

For me, it is obvious that they pass each of the checkpoints in WP:ORG. Den... (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In other words, this ORG sponsored a anti-fur protest march that drew 250 protestors and was part of a brief newscycle about London Fashion week. Fails WP:ORG.


 * Delete due to no SIGCOV. Promotional page!  XavierItzm (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The sooner, the better. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, on account of subject failing WP:ORG. The article's creator seeems passionate about animal rights, which many might find commendable in itself, but Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. -The Gnome (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2018 (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.