Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truman National Security Project


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Truman National Security Project

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of notability, no references. Google research shows its "fellows" are twentysomethings who occasionally write blog posts on low-traffic blogs and hold other day jobs. THF (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete Notability is missing in this one. --Stormbay (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep- Well, sources. The article as it stands has nothing even resembling a reliable source. SF Chronicle barely mentions it, Obama attends a forum organized by the subject, but the article is more about Obama than the TNSP, Similar from Britain's Guardian, Mentioned in the Boston Globe, Very passing mention in the Washington Post, and a fellow of the TNSP testifying for the Senate. Lots and lots of passing mentions, tons and tons more I could have quoted where the TNSP was mentioned in a the credentials when quoting one of their fellows. There's so many mentions, and the ones I've cited have gone over 4 years, that I think there's enough notability to build a real article here, but I can't find the nice, in-depth article that would cement my mind towards keeping this. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the article's authors can demonstrate notability through a source other than their own website. I imagine that the article can be brought up to code, although in looking at the website's own posting of mentions in the press , I agree with Brad that there seems to be no article about the group itself.  Maybe you should call Rush or No-spin Bill.  Mandsford (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2010 (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.