Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single Subject Amendment

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. Davewild (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single Subject Amendment

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

Here's one of those articles that fills up its references section with links about tangential things in the hopes that you won't notice there aren't references to support what the article is actually about. References 4 through 8 (in the version current as of this writing) are about what a Super PAC is, and 9 is about how amending the U.S. Constitution works. 10 through 12 are about a memorial passed by the Florida state legislature on a subject the organization supports (but not about the organization itself), and it isn't even independent coverage of that memorial, it's just the state legislature's own website noting that the memorial exists and another website that lists state bills also noting that it exists. 14 and 15 are similar about a bill introduced in the House of Representatives last year that hasn't come to anything, again simply noting that it exists. 13, from the fringey WND, is about the issue the organization supports, but it doesn't even mention the organization (unless you want to count someone from the organization self-promoting in the comments section (!)). As for the first three, 1 is a promotional blurb in a state legislator newsletter, and 2 and 3 are from a local Florida paper so local, it isn't listed on List of newspapers in Florida. After checking Google, Google News, and Google Books, I've seen enough to be convinced this doesn't meet WP:GNG. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator. Mostly original research, fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ORG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT because it is so badly written as to be nonsense. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 27 July 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.