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. sufficient sources for keep; arguments based on number of internet hits doesn't count one way or the other. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grey2K USA

[edit]

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

This organisation has about 50.000 internet hits. That is remarkedly low for an organisation who claims to successfully petition for the prohibition of dog racing using the ballot initiative process. Google News only offers 5 hits. Unless they use other names for their campaigns, I regard them as not notable and this article as a way of self promotion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Search in the "archives" tab of Google news, like this. It will show news reports from the archives as well. The 5 results you mention are just the recent reports. Notability clearly established by various WP:RS. Lynch 7 15:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm, 321 hits on Google News. Not very impressive. It shows about 13 hits a year... Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've had articles with lesser than that. The number of news articles is never a criteria to determine notability. Not every organization is Microsoft or Apple to have an impossible number of hits. WP:ORG details the criteria. Lynch 7 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extensive coverage in books and magazines, such as here, here, here, here, here, an encyclopedia entry here, as well as extensive news coverage here, here, here, here, and here, where they are described as "one of Massachusetts' most politically active anti-gambling groups". Night of the Big Wind is making a classic WP:GOOGLEHITS argument, which is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion debates. There could be a topic that has hundreds of thousands of Google hits to blogs, YouTube and various social networking sites, and that topic would not be notable by Wikipedia standards. On the other hand, a topic could have only three or four good, solid hits turned up by a Google News Archive search, and still would be considered notable if there is significant coverage in high quality reliable sources, like this topic. When books published by solid publishing houses and major newspapers give significant coverage to a topic, then the topic is notable. Tens of thousands of Google hits are simply not required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 5 November 2011 (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.