Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands (2nd 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 delete. By about 2 to 1, editors are of the view that coverage of this political action committee was too short-lived to warrant an article. If somebody wants to mention it in a related article, googling the name and that of its founder Henry Kraemer should provide enough sources for a sentence or two.  Sandstein  12:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands (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)

Yet another WP:NOTNEWS article which doesn't pass the WP:10YT. Delete or merge a couple sentences to Stop Trump movement. — JFG ^talk 11:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "We are patriotic Americans devoted to educating our fellow citizens about Donald Trump's tiny baby hands." All the coverage is just because of the name and that's all there is. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:10YT are just a sample of all the guidelines this article fails. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG and the first deletion discussion. There is plenty of coverage to justify an article, which just needs to be expanded. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it is all very low quality tabloid news which is not about anything they did, just about their novelty name? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Reminds me of Graydon Carter's infamous "short-fingered vulgarian" which was deleted per BLPVIO and ATTACK even though the term had been a longstanding nickname of Trump. I don't see why this campaign stunt which made the news for a couple days should survive. We exclude pretty large companies or associations with much wider coverage than this joke. — JFG ^talk 22:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Campaign stunt. I don't think there is an article in Wikipedia for every Political Action Committee. Unless this one has done something more interesting than select a name, let's not keep the article. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per first discussion. It passes notability and it would be silly to just provide it a "couple sentences" in a different article when it can be explored in depth with significant coverage in its own article. Carbrera (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep This is a registered PAC that is a distinct entity from other groups, that deserves coverage on their actions alone. It is highly cited from credible news sources and should remain. Jasonanaggie (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Here is the sum total of additions made to this article since it was first nominated in July: [1] — a grand display of nothingness. Pray tell, if this thing has received no coverage since the initial buzz, how do you propose to extend it now? — JFG ^talk 08:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You've initiated the deletion discussion and now added two comments, so you've made your point. But just because an article hasn't been edited since July does not mean the article doesn't have potential to be expanded. We all know that Wikipedia is a work in progress. All that matters here is if the subject is notable. Here are some sources to consider, which I am posting after the below two delete votes:

Hope this helps to establish notability. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Countless political groups exist across the U.S., and this one has only attracted a smattering of attention. Other than that short-term burst of interest, there's not been the lasting coverage that signify this as being anything more than a 'flash in the pan' thing. Just because a group is somewhat popular for a short time doesn't make it really notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever happened to WP:BEFORE D1?  The topic now gets coverage in a 2016 book.  As per a November 7 article from Williamette Week, "The Portland pranksters previously known as Americans Against Insecure Billionaires With Tiny Hands PAC have pivoted to a new project: ..."  Other articles show that the November Pizza effort raised $300,000 by way of Twitter.  The initial news bubble had coverage in Australia.  There is another factor here because we discount WP:RS WP:Inaccuracy, as I understand from the word "pranksters".  Yet this is countered by the real example of the PAC being forced to change its name, which is likely to continue to draw attention to the topic over time.  Wikipedia can wait to see the verdict of time, so delete  Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Another Believer's extensive list of articles. Longevitydude (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with you.--連綿 (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect a sourced sentence at Stop Trump. Reason is that this political equivalent of a BLP1E, and is not encyclopedic. Yes, it happened, but even the sources cited describe it as a "prank." Granted, it's clever prank, the video isn't LOL funny, but it is clever. However, there is just not enough here to warrant keeping. Except possibly as a redirect/merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable PAC. This group spent less than $10,000 during its entire existence, which has ended (it filed its termination report with the Federal Election Commission in December 2016). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like another detail to add to the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that this article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and that the article doesn't pass the ten year test. Gfcvoice (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is one of around 4000 PACs, and although it garnered a burst of near-tabloid type coverage due to the provocative name, there is no sustained coverage necessary for notability. It will soon be long forgotten. WP:ONEVENT MB 02:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-sourced, in-depth coverage, we don't need anything else. Articles shouldn't be renominated hoping to get a different result. ValarianB (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Truly huge joke, the best, the biggest, and sure to drain the swamp. This PAC makes the best jokes. Make billionaire's hands bigger! But -- No lasting coverage -- Sad! Bearian (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS, lacking long term notability. Props to Bearian for the comment above.LM2000 (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Yet another article containing little or no substance, serving primarily as a clickbait-like collection of one particular type of sources from one particular point in time with no evidence of enduring notability. It's no incentive for me to continue to contribute to this encyclopedia when faced with so many other editors who are content to pick low-hanging fruit like this, pushing every little piece of Trump-related minutiae as automatically and inherently notable while making excuses for why we're so far afield in our coverage of so many other notable topics not making recent news. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:22, 6 February 2017 (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.