Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vote Climate U.S. PAC

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 Move to draft. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Climate U.S. PAC

[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)

Article is entirely sourced to the organization's own site. No indication of notability among thousands of minor PACs. — JFG ^talk 01:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

del' - no indication of notability whatsoever. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added non-subject reference. There are certainly more out there too. X1\ (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no real secondary sources, and current sources are rank.

Ref 1 Them on vox medium.
Ref 2 dead.
Ref 3 to their own indiegogo fund raising site
Ref 4 to their site
Ref 5 to their site, dead
Ref 6 to their own site
Ref 7 /sites forbes blog subdomain. Non RS.

Every references is to their own sites channels. scope_creep (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now – I think this nomination may be a bit premature, as they have continued making news after this discussion started. However, the article does need to be almost completely rewritten. See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. No prejudice against renominating in a few months if they prove to have no lasting significance, but right now it may be too soon to tell. Brad v 17:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft to allow for the possibility of improvement. bd2412 T 04:04, 23 November 2018 (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.