Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partnership for a Secure America

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 delete. Not sure where to userfy to, so if somebody does want to work on this please tell me and I'll userfy it for them. Sandstein 11:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership for a Secure America

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

This was, and to some extent still is, little more than a substitute for the organization's website--please see the history for how bad it was. I can find reliable sources mentioning the topic, like this one, and there's various other hits like this one, but that's it--I am not seeing any significant discussion. There's also a book hit, here, but again, there's no discussion of the outfit at all--the only information given is from the club's own website. (Pretty lousy job on the part of the writer.) So I don't see any good sources for us to write an article with. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

needs a closer look for a start I searched the name on WaPo, results here: [1]. I'll try to get back to this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @E.M.Gregory: I've taken a look at the articles from the search you linked and this appears to be the only one which covers the topic in any detail (but that article focuses on a report released by the organization, not the organization itself). The others are job listings or passing mentions of someone who's affiliated. In terms of content outside your search, I was able to find a number of articles which contain passing mentions of the subject, but nothing in detail. I think it may be possible to find enough sources, but I'm not having any luck here. Elaenia (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, material to write an article exists in the WaPo article cited above, and in these searches of Politico [2]; The Hill [3] and Google Books [4]. In sum, the organization was real and notable in its moment, it merely needs a bit of a re-write and some sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and Userfy at best because my searches only found a few links and nothing outstandingly convincing of an immediately better article. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft or Userfy per suggestion of SwisterTwister. There is notability potential here, but what I've seen thus far it's not there yet.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2016 (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.