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The result was Result was withdrawn by nominator. Due to an issue with templates, I have re-closed on nominator's behalf. (non-admin closure) SportingFlyer T·C 17:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC) ‎[reply]

RBG PAC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Length does not justify an article. No WP:SIGCOV is present. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, on procedural grounds as no policy or guideline based deletion argument has been made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ElijahPepe: the article currently includes significant coverage in papers of record[1][2]. This doesn't make any more sense than the previous one did... You can argue that there isn't enough signicant coverage, but there isn't a way to argue that there is *no* singficant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing this further. This is clearly a WP:PERMASTUB that barely passed the size rule at the time this was opened. I haven't a clue why you're insistent that this deserves to be an article, 221 words and all. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is a valid deletion argument... Even if we take it for granted that it is a PERMASTUB that isn't an argument for deletion. The size rule is about splitting/merging, and you proposed deletion not merging. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC

Fine. I'll close this and open a merge request so I can hear the rest of your arguments for why a 220 word article should be in mainspace. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It would be far easier to judge this AFD if the nominator could provide some comment about the sourcing. That way I at least have some overview of what needs to be looked at for an !vote. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1. BilletsMauves^€500 11:15, 23 January 2025 (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.