Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctors for America

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. Missvain (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doctors for America

[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)

Appears to fail WP:NORG due to a lack of in-depth coverage in secondary sources. I considered a redirect to Vivek Murthy, but as he's a co-founder we'd have a WP:XY problem. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~COMMENT: fails the SIRS test but can be kept once it is met The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I do have trouble finding direct coverage in secondary sources, but the group seems to have received at least passing mention in virtually every news outlet out there (e.g. Miami Herald, Politico, LA Times, WSJ, Houston Chronicle, Bloomberg, CBS, WaPo, NYT). Even if there isn't any direct coverage, the indirect coverage so broad as to meet WP:GNG. NickCT (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both WP:GNG and WP:NORG require significant coverage. None of these articles provide significant coverage. They are all passing mentions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings: - I do take your point, and partially agree that by a strict interpretation, this probably shouldn't fly. That said, I feel like some number of passing mentions can be summed to equate to a significant coverage, and this group seems to hit that bar. NickCT (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. The subject meets WP:N independent of Vivek Murthy. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like a solid organization, 20,000 members, interesting software, very activist, weighing in on issues that are of a high priority for a substantial part of the U.S. population. I just don't see any downside for retaining it. Activist (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Activist, Well, the downside to retaining it would be that it fails notability criteria, and that none of the details you cited are independently verifiable—even through the sources cited above. But it seems I'm about to be outvoted on this, so perhaps a stubbification is in order. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:49, 27 December 2020 (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.