Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protest Warrior (2nd nomination)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protest Warrior[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:CLUB. I took a look at all the cited sources, and they appear to all be trivial mentions or primary sources, not the "significant coverage in reliable sources" that we require for inclusion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Little in the way of significant coverage either in the article or found from a search. There are several news articles that mention the organization, but I think it really needs more than this: Boston Globe, Times Daily, Dallas Observer (this is the correct URL for the piece cited in the article), Washington Times, Hernando Today. Also some book coverage here, but it hardly looks scholarly.--Michig (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little in the way of primary sources. The sources they do give relate to the blog and site. The rest are dead. scope_creep (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did a news archive search and these sources found [1]. But someone has to do the work to enter info into article. Any takers? I dislike the group and have seen better groups with equally good refs deleted, so don't feel I should vote. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could stand to be edited, but there are sources out there. Admittedly, most of the media coverage is minor, because the group tended to appear mostly to satirize and counterprotest other, larger protests. But here is discussion of the group in a book by Matt Taibbi. Here's an article about them in the Dallas Observer. As one might expect, Fox News wrote about them too. And just this month, a Republican candidate for Congress lost a Tea Party endorsement because of his past involvement with Protest Warrior. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing seems adequate and writing is decent. I like the careful way the current status of the group is explored. --MelanieN (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The group has sufficient coverage in the 3 reliable sources listed in the external links section, but all of the RS mentioned in the references section are dead. Consolidate the 2 sections, re-cite, and clean out the dead links. Tarc (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.