Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grassroots Out

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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Grassroots Out

Grassroots Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Three-day old astroturfing group, all sources are based on press coverage of a single event, the launch, and some seem to be primarily based on press releases. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Use of "astroturfing" implies WP:IDONTLIKEIT on part of nominator. Extensive third party coverage: BBC, Daily Mail, Huffington Post UK, Conservative Home, Daily Telegraph. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

More press releases, excellent. Perhaps it might even become significant, it's hard to tell when it's less than a hundred hours old. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, Campaign that says it is going to compliment whichever main campaign (Leave.EU or Vote Leave) will be chosen as the Leave Campaign by the Electoral Commission. Involves high profile politicians. Mgordon27 20:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it really? WP:CRYSTAL applies. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Delete for now and draft & userfy for now if it is questionably solid and notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with above commenter. Use of "astroturfing" implies WP:IDONTLIKEIT on part of nominator. 15:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.130.228 (talk)
• Keep: A quick scan of the news sites shows that "Grassroots Out" already notable, with many mainstream media organisations commenting on the organisation. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 18:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: Google News (there are other search engines) brings up plenty of coverage in WP:RS. Easily passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. This organisation is likely to grow given the widespread dissatisfaction with the other two exit groups. It may even end up as the official campaigning body. Deletion would be highly premature. --Ef80 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. This deletion request is just ridiculous. 131.111.185.68 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There appears to be significant coverage on the campaign organization, and does not fit into WP:1E (that's for people; alternatively, WP:BLP1E is for living people). This is also a developing event that is gaining cultural, societal, and economical significance. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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.