Absolutely nothing was done to meet any concerns made in the deletion discussion, yet the article has somehow been restored. Not only is there zero (!) independent WP:RS coverage of this organization, but the article was literally authored by the organization itself and the vast majority of the low-quality sources belong to the organization itself. Is there some kind of appeal that can be made? A quick-deletion process? Because it's frankly ludicrous that an article this poorly sourced should stand. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- One editor added four local news stories and two op-eds by state propaganda websites. Still not notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Of course, I didn't add the state media propaganda articles to demonstrate facts, only to demonstrate the reach of the organization. We can take that paragraph out if you think it is unreasonable, but as far as notability goes, it is pretty easy to establish. Their lists and work are routinely covered in US national media (as the sentence and references you reverted indicates). If I wasn't on my way to work, I would be happy to add more article-length coverage in national media to their work. We're bordering on Kafka here, if I am supposed to demonstrate the notability of an organization but doing so constitutes synthesis. I'll take another gander at the article in a few hours, but I feel like your objections are pretty thin on the ground. --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
