Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrueMajority


 * 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 (NAC) RMHED .  23:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

TrueMajority

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There is a clear conflict of interest with this article, and due to the name of the organisation it is near impossible for me to determine whether this is notable or not. As it stands now the article is simply an advert for this organisation, and is being used for advocacy, and completely lacks sourcing which is independent of the subject and/or which isn't a press release. This is something AfD can sort out. Russavia Dialogue 19:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I am finding a lot of sources here.  I found sources citing this as a group alongside MoveOn:  &, and other sources mentioning it as an activist group with some influence/recognition: , .  It also has received media attention in articles written primarily/specifically about the organization, with their "pig parade": , .  Another article (limited access):   Here's an interview with their founder: .  Yes, most of these sources are ones that have a clear liberal bias to them--but they are all indexed in either google news or (a few in) google scholar.   Cazort (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I just found a better way to search.   Lots of coverage!  That includes better sources, including some more conservative-slanted ones:,  Cazort (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I have had to gut almost the entire article as it was a blatant WP:COPYVIO of the website, and it was clearly being used for advocacy. I'll have a look at some of the links provided by Cazort, to determine whether I will withdraw this nomination, but looking at some of them, they are press releases and the like. I'll revert back before too long. --Russavia Dialogue 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article must be gutted. But I think this should exist, maybe I'll chip in too on the editing.  Cazort (talk)
 * Ok, I basically eliminated almost all of what original text was left and added a ton of stuff with references. Although some of the material is from press releases, there seems to be a good amount of coverage in both mainstream and international press, and the facts seem to establish notability, with the large member base, attraction of international attention, and sustained involement across different issues (i.e. it's not a one-issue group that fizzled out).  What do you say?  I'd like to see others expand it some more but I think it's fine as-is.  Cazort (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per many secondary, reliable sources and Cazort.— Noetic  Sage  00:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a much improved article that meetsall the requirements .DGG (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, given that we now have sources establishing notability. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:25, 24 February 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.