Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational Response Squad (3rd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rational Response Squad

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

No long-term notability. Article has obviously been created by group members for self-aggrandizement. SenatorJesseHelms (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the result of the first AFD was Speedy Delete, in spite of heavy use of sock-puppets in favor of keeping the article. --SenatorJesseHelms (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've debolded "speedy delete" in your comment above, as it might give the impression that you're trying to !vote on your own nomination. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per first and second nominations. Do not know why we need to revisit this. Notability is not something temporary. Martinogk (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not as many citations as I remember it having, but it's still got enough coverage to pass the GNG. The Blasphemy Challenge was a pretty big deal, and it made headlines, as demonstrated in the article. Notability is not temporary, and the group does not have to maintain constant coverage. There are elements of WP:ONEEVENT involved in the Blasphemy Challenge coverage, but there's other coverage, too, even if it's not quite as strong. For example, their work debunking Uri Geller: [1] from USA Today, [2] from the San Francisco Chronicle, and [3] from Ars Technica. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seemingly well-sourced and informative therefore seemingly notable and acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep - it annoys me that every RS in the article is basically a report on other people responding to one inane publicity stunt. But, I have to concede, it worked. This is not the first time that Wikipedia has rewarded some person or organisation whose only claim to fame is making a big noise over nothing, and it won't be the last. The fact that I don't like it is immaterial. De Guerre (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2015 (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.