Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Don't Speak for Me


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  20:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You Don't Speak for Me

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can barely find any RS coverage of this organization (besides from groups like the ADL and SPLC that systematically collect hate groups, whether they are notable or not), and literally nothing about this organization in the last 10 years or so. The complete lack of RS coverage shows that there is nothing notable about this organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Lousy WP:BEFORE search, to paraphrase Nom, RS coverage shows that there is PLENTY notable about this organization. Article now sourced.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All the coverage of the group is limited to 2006 and 2007. It's a sub-org of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Whatever RS coverage there is of this group should be merged with the FAIR article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * first you claim "complete lack of RS coverage", so I run a simple search and add many reputable new stories form papers that include The Washington Post and The Arizona Republic. Now you claim that it should be merged because it was active only briefly.  Frankly, I think that you simply DISLIKE this organizations political stance and are a POV editor who goes around deleting articles you DO NOT LIKE by making false assertions such as "I can barely find any RS coverage" when it is crystal clear that you didn't even try. A.Jacobin (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note that editors have been warring over this page for years, and that there may well be reliable sources that were deleted. And also, I promise find/make time later in the week to improve the article, although I BELIEVE that the sourcing and edits that I did earlier this week make it a WP:GNG.A.Jacobin (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is well-sourced and persuades me that this is, or was, a notable protest organization.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with Federation for American Immigration Reform - News searches produce a lot of false positives as "you don't speak for me" is a pretty common political statement, and gauging the extent to which this particular astroturf group has any notability is difficult. Let's just tie them back to the parent org. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but ALL of the articles and books that I have added to the article address this particular organization. More sources here:  A.Jacobin (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but having a group of latinos who do astroturf for FAIR doesn't convey independent notability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep activity over two years (2006-2007) is sufficient to meet WP:SUSTAINED, significant coverage in multiple RS FOARP (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2019 (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.