Deletion of Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club

Comment: Notability hinges on junk food news sources, not the significant coverage in non-trivial works that  speaks of
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: hi {{ping|drlemon98}} if you meant that you are a member of that Facebook group, then I would suggest you are better off not voting due to . Please change your vote to a '''Comment
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COISELF)

Comment: Firstly, I am a member of the group (not a moderator, not a frequent commenter, just a member). Wikipedia only decides whether articles are suitable subjects for inclusion based on their |coverage in reliable third party sources. This article has enough of such sources in my opinion. I'm not at all convinced by any of the above delete rationales - |articles simply aren't deleted because of their authors, but based on whether they adequately meet the |notability guidelines. If you don't think the subject has been covered in sufficient |reliable sources then argue that - arguments based on the author or that Wikipedia |doesn't have articles on similar subjects aren't valid
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:INVOLVE||WP:N||WP:RS||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: The topic meets  per coverage in http://betabeat.com/2014/09/cool-freaks-wikipedia-club-is-the-only-facebook-group-you-need/ New York Observer, http://www.vice.com/read/cool-freaks-wikipedia-club-is-a-shitshow-of-esoterica-and-trigger-warnings-815 Vice, http://mic.com/articles/106062/there-s-a-whole-community-dedicated-to-the-wild-depths-of-wikipedia Mic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: Hi {{ping|Samwalton9}} as a member of the Facebook group I would suggest that you refrain from voting, please change your keep vote to a comment due to . Regards
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COISELF)

Comment: Hi {{ping|Boomur}} I dispute that the CFWC has been profiled by ''The Atlantic'', it has been mentioned by Alexis Madrigal in a blog on tinyletter.com which does not qualify as a . That AM is perhaps a deputy editor of ''The Atlantic'' doesn't change the fact that the CFWC hasn't been mentioned in ''The Atlantic'' itself
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The Atlantic'', ''Vice'', and other good |RS's do, in fact, prove notability. I saw a few comments about subreddits getting their own pages, and if there's enough sources to prove notability, then why not? It's tempting to fall into a  argument, but we should avoid these. Is this article self-referential? Sure, but again, we have the independent sources, so we're fine with articles like this about Wikipedia-related stuff
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: the subject of that page lacks notability per the  as no  verifies the notability of the subject Facebook group
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: size is not a primary guide to inclusion, neither is there any verifiable evidence presented of the group being wp:rs "influential enough to be notable" - The sources are opinion pieces, blogs, and student newspapers - not particularly good quality sources to establish otability - fails  and wp:web and the  imo
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:WEBCRIT||WP:GNG)

Comment: Could the delete voters please go through each source used in the article and explain why each isn't a |reliable source? Do that and I'll change my vote to delete because you'll have convinced me that the article doesn't pass the |notability guidelines. Saying you don't feel like the subject is suitable or that the article was created by a COI editor are |not valid arguments
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:ATA)