Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Movement

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 20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes Movement

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

Prod removed, group is a minor, nonnotable political action group. A source search shows some cursory mentions, but more in the context of the activities of the person who formed it. It already has a mention in the John Kitzhaber article, so this is duplicative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thargor Orlando (talk • contribs) 15:50, 5 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added four new citations to independent reliable sources (there are now seven total). I will try to continue to expand the article with well referenced citations during the discussion, and suggest that participants keep an eye on improvements in case it helps inform your position. In addition, please bear in mind that the organization changed its name in 2011 to "We Can Do Better," so more recent news coverage will not typically come up under a search for "Archimedes Movement." -Pete (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The organization has been profiled in a variety of news sources, both in and outside Oregon, over a 7 year span, meeting the notability threshold. -Pete (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which profiles are you talking about? We should probably add them to the article if they exist. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage and multiple non-significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources to indicate group is notable per WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which significant coverage do you refer to? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the news sources and book sources. The are multiple mentions, and some significant coverage where the subject is the primary subject of the content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have. The mentions in reliable media are pretty much entirely in the context of the governor, and not about the group. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still view the group as having significant coverage; however, as a compromise I can see the content merged and redirected to the article about the governor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no substantial reliable sources; the first Oregonian articles is about many other topics as well, and the second is an oped. Siuslaw also does not focus on this group. Skin and Allergy News is PR in a newsletter. The others are unreliable websites for the purpose of notability. However, I cannot see the Register Guard article, b; it seems to focus on the general topic, but one such source is not enough. Given that the distinctive name is obsolete andthe current nameis not distinctive, there doesn't seem any point in even a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, a couple questions: (1) I'm not sure what you mean about "distinctive names." The group itself is the same before/after the name change, so either the group is notable or it isn't; I'm not sure how the distinctiveness of the name relates to that? I think We Can Do Better is probably the best article name if this is kept, that seems rather uncontroversial, no? (2) Could you take a closer look at Skin & Allergy News? While it is certainly a bit of a niche publication, I don't think it's a mere "newsletter," and it's certainly not a republication of a press release. The author's LinkedIn profile suggests he does not (at least now) live in Oregon, and that he bills himself as a journalist; and the publication's "About Us" page declares that it's an independent publication with a clearly articulated mission, that it's been around since the 1970s, and the kind of editorial structure that our reliable sources guideline favors, and that is not typical of a mere newsletter. This may or may not be enough to sway your overall opinion, but either way, it seems significant. -Pete (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest with you: Skin & Allergy news, on the first look I gave it, looked awfully spammy. It appears I was definitely wrong on that part of it. I'm still not seeing the multiple substantial articles about the movement needed, but I was wrong about there not being any. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look, and sorry to leave your question hanging last time. I am doing another dig for sources, have not come up with anything major yet, but as somebody who's followed this org for a few years, I am surprised how difficult it is to find sources. It is well known in the Oregon policy world, and it seems like maybe they haven't managed to generate commensurate press coverage. I recently attended its annual conference, which had I'd guess about 400 participants; I'm surprised not to find any press coverage of that event or its predecessors. I'm still digging. -Pete (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per abundance of news coverage. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

checking the ones from outside Oregon, they are either editorials, incidental mentions, of mentions of the proponent or his movement is comments by readers. Checking some of the ones in Oregon, they duplicate each other. Before you give a straight g-search as an indication of sources, look at them and say which ones you think Reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 March 2013‎

But this expands on what the article already has. And the Google News results include stories in The Florida Times-Union and even in The Washington Post. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2013 (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.