Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Model US Gov

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. Consensus is that this lacks notability per WP:GNG (coverage in third-party sources). Sandstein 07:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Model US Gov

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

See Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and other parts of What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not intended to publicize any particular Reddits unless they have achieved third-party notability, which is not indicated here. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Page is written in a completely encyclopedic manner and is not a how to guide. I have made the page because of its notability in relation to the Model United Nations and Model Congress. User:TJjeremiah (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Encyclopedic" here on Wikipedia means that an article summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about the topic, TJjeremiah This article does not cite any sources independent of Reddit, and I was not able to find any such sources. The topic is not notable unless these sources can be provided. The comparisons to Model United Nations and Model Congress are not valid since those programs have received coverage in reliable, independent sources for decades. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO, even if sourcing were provided to show this is notable, it would not meet our standards of inclusion in the current format. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per others. Also though I am skeptical of notability based on reference list currently. Zell Faze (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this subject definitely does not have enough coverage from third-parties to warrant its own article. While some subreddits do deserve their own articles due to their notability (like r/The_Donald and r/science, for example), I don't believe that this group of reddit communities is notable enough. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 18:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as at least two people who have participated in this simulation have gone on to run for positions at the local and/or state level, providing the simulation with notability at least in those circles. Also, it seems as though this article is not a how-to guide, making the WP:NOTHOWTO link above misplaced. ArchieSmith (talk) 18:27, 9 August 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.