Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Amendment audits

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. Anyone is free to start an RM discussion at any time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First Amendment audits

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable use of a term that is limited to a few web channels or youtube videos. No usage of the term in RS in Gnews, does not appear to have caught on. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Conspiracy theories, Law, Social science, and United States of America. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Police. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep if the only rationale is the name. Even a quick scan of the headlines in the references section would indicate that the term is commonly used in RS to describe this activity, despite originating from the practitioners themselves. See Washington Post, LA Times, and the numerous local news sources cited on the page that all use this term. Even if this name shouldn't be used, it should be a discussion for a move request, not an AfD.

Yeeno (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This has useful information for an increasingly common thing with lowering American public opinion on the police force and officials. If you think the name is bad, then it can be changed. Sorry if anyone disagrees with this. Have a good day. Tvshowoflife (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear non-trivial coverage in sources such as the Washington Post, Daily Dot, LA Times… Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yeeno and Barnards.tar.gz. Coverage is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. No objection to a rename, as suggested above. Sal2100 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:RS coverage is WP:INDEPTH and establishes subject notability as a stand alone topic per WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2023 (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.