Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Back The News


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Take Back The News

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A website and now defunct non-profit organization. While the group's aim was noble, I'm not finding anything that shows that they garnered any sort of recognition that would pass the GNG. During the regular searches, I found no references to the group outside of their own website. The one claim of notability the article claims is the recognition by The New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault, but I can find no reference to this elsewhere, including on the NYSCASA's own site. Rorshacma (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep At a first glance, seems to meet WP: NOTABILITY, but it is defunct. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, to meet Notability, we would need to have some actual sources to verify it. I'm not finding any at all, myself.  Rorshacma (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this organisation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral This organization performed a useful service in the past but it closed down in 2009. Of course, not all organizations lose notability just because they close down. So, the closing Admin has a difficult decision to make. This is a borderline keep or delete. --Artene50 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Where are the sources that document this useful service in the past? How can this be borderline when nobody has offered any sources? -- Whpq (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yeah, that's exactly why I nominated it for deletion. The group may have had a noble purpose, and people may have been helped by it in the past.  However, not a single source exists that talks about the group at all, so no matter how useful it may have been, there's no way it passes the GNG.  Rorshacma (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Change of opinion. This was a good organization and a search engine can still find it but since its now defunct, its best to remove its wikipedia entry. The key point is a search engine can still locate it. So, perhaps it doesn't need a wikipedia article of its own. --Artene50 (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG, as there are no reliable sources. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2012 (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.