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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billionaires for Bush[edit]

Billionaires for Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is an unnotable organization, and has been tagged as such since March. A lot of the article is written as original research because there are no reliable sources throughout most of the article. Tavix (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although it sounds like it's real, there is no evidence even though the article says they got a lot of press coverage. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a non-noteworthy group. The article lacks reliable third-party sources, which is a tip-off that the organization doesn't merit inclusion. Majoreditor (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A reluctant delete. Sad as I am to say it, I have to go with the delete crowd on this one, because I don't think there will ever be sufficient sources to satisfy notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to keep after seeing new reliable sources. Great work, everyone! SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here's a source, from the New York Times no less: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/19/politics/campaign/19ROVE.html. Try the Wall Street Journal, too, if you can access it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.76.80 (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Majoreditor. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep A crappy article from a Wikipedia sourcing perspective for a group that is unquestionably notable and has received extensive media coverage, this search at The New York Times turning up 371 references alone. This search at Google News Archive turned up 502 sources, though there might well be some overlap. I'm not sure what search terms were used by those who could not find any sources, but I used the term "Billionaires for Bush" (in quotes), with a great deal of success. Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires nominators to do due diligence to research the notability of article subjects and to edit and expand articles before heading over to AfD. I will be happy to add some sources on my own, but notability is unquestionable based on the scope and breadth of sources covering the group, not much of a surprise given the organization's penchant for (and success in) obtaining media coverage. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am surprised to find that many sources for it, thanks for people who rescued it. Tavix (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then would you consider withdrawing your AFD? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, I think I'll let it work its way through, just in case there are anyone else that wants to comment. Tavix (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:V and WP:RS. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability and reliable sourcing established. Banjeboi 00:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There should be no doubt that the initial concerns have been remedied adequately. __meco (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Improved sufficiently to demonstrate criteria met for inclusion per WP:ORG and WP:RS and well done to the WikiFoundIt Entities for their sterling efforts and results. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw Nomination. My original concerns have been met, and a surprisingly good amount of work has been added to the article. Seems like it is notable after all. Tavix (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2008 (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.