Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth Revolt


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Truth Revolt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, or at least not yet. The organization was only created last month. More importantly, the sources cited don't appear to pass muster, at least as far as notability is concerned: several are cited to Truth Revolt itself, several others are to breitbart.com, which, judging from source 2, is not independent of Truth Revolt. The USAToday and Daily Caller sources are opinion pieces, which aren't considered reliable. This leaves only the DailyBeast article, which has no indications of being an opinion piece, but given previous discussions at RSN, I'm not sure it's reliable enough to confer notability on its own. Further searches didn't turn up anything reliable and independent. I'd welcome differing opinions, though. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom there is not enough sourcing yet. BTW Opinion pieces can be used for notability (see WP:BIASED which allows for them), it's a question of the underlying source and author of the piece. In this case the source is ok USA Today but the author is less well known, so not sure how notable it would be. If it was Bill Clinton writing the opinion in the New York Times... -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in USA Today plus the organization's early successes favor inclusion.  97.113.5.118 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation. It's a very new organisation, and the lack of significant coverage reflects that.  The USA Today opinion piece is usable to advance notability, as it is under some editorial control, but it's the only item from a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2013 (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.