Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 912 Project

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. Cirt (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 912 Project

Delete - zero notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.202.135.189 (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of notability by reliable & independent sources. Just a dubious political project initiated by a television personality. Huge vandal attractor. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per no assertion of notability. Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. This article is (sadly) culturally relevant, helping explain a subculture in the American conservative movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.231.93 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Thousands of people are joining this group and participating in "Tea Parties" around the country.E2a2j (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated above. Non-notable, no significant recognition or response outside of Glenn Beck's show. Neutronium (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete It might be appropriate to merge this article with another article as it shares beliefs with other conservative campaigns such as the tea party movement. The Glen Beck website claims it has 400,000 members. There are independent websites dedicated to the project as well.Joshm22 (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The movement is growing and relevant for those who want to find out about Conservatives. The website has gained in less than three weeks 425,453 members and it's still growing.

Note to closing admin, User:Joshm22's and User:Cuchin2254's contribution histories suggest that they have only edited pages related to the 912 Project. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic has been the subject of multiple new stories, even though those are not listed in the article. [1] Karanacs (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In a way it's insulting that he puts on this fake act like he really cares. Until it becomes a really big deal, the article should be deleted just for the time being... -- Gouryella (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could define "really big deal"? Of course, that wouldn't be NPOV now would it?

What I meant was, until it gets notability from people or if this project is really serious instead of just a stunt he's trying to pull. Anyway, it should just be added to Glenn Beck's page for the time being. -- Gouryella (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, make mention on Glenn Beck article if need be. Nothing particularly notable about this organization. Article is currently nothing more than a transcript of Beck's show. Notability is not inherited. Just because Beck created this doesn't make it any more notable than Badger Drink's 11 Project, which revolves around the core principle of "Glenn Beck is a moron", featuring the core value of "Any political movement which would deny a human being the right to medical attention is steeped in ignorance and inhumanity". The burden of proof is on the article creators to show us significant mainstream coverage - and first party sources (a.k.a. Beck) do not fit the bill. One would hope the closing admin would see through the (suspiciously large) amount of poorly rationalized !votes - AfD is not a vote. Badger Drink (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Karanacs mentions "multiple new stories" but the google news link brings up 14 hits. 4 hits from examiner.com a site where anyone can sign up and be a writer. The El Paso Times opinion piece has already been removed. The Palmetto Scoop piece is a letter to the editor. The AOL New piece is unrelated, only spam in the comments mention the project. The 2 Right Pundits pieces, the Lone Star Times, the History News Network, the New Hounds, and the NRC Handelsblad piece, are all blogs. And then there's the Human Events piece which mentions the project as a set up to talk about Beck's favorite book, which was authored by the uncle of the guy who wrote this piece! Sarilox (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. At most it merits a mention in either Glenn Beck or Glenn Beck Program, but there's nothing really notable about this "project"; it's just a talk show slogan. — Red XIV ^(talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mention on Glenn Beck article is enough. The current form is just a transcription of what he said on his show. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly doesn't warrant its own entry. — Sampo Torgo ^[talk] 03:06, October 8, 2024 CDT [refresh]

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.