Deletion of Young Conservatives of Texas (2nd nomination)

Comment: reply|Miraclepine}} thanks for the notice. The organization continues to receive significant coverage, such as https://thedailytexan.com/2018/12/05/the-university-and-some-students-call-young-conservatives-of-texas-%E2%80%98provocative%E2%80%99-members this article in 2018, the appendix provided by Drmies above, a significant amount of coverage in the book https://books.google.com/books?id=9H7T8cDsmzcC&q=%22Young+Conservatives+of+Texas%22&dq=%22Young+Conservatives+of+Texas%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1_JCm39znAhWEMX0KHcKbAaMQ6AEwB3oECAEQAg ''American Government: Continuity and Change, 2006 Texas Edition'', as well as significant mentions in news articles such as https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/new-ut-freshmen-threatened-with-release-of-personal-info-if-they-join-conservative-groups this one published by KEYE, and https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2016/10/26/ut-young-conservatives-affirmative-action-bake-sale-draws-hundreds-of-angry-students/ this one published by ''The Dallas Morning News''. While the editing community of Wikipedia may change, regardless of the subject's political alignment, if an editor where to evaluate the subject on its merits I am of the opinion that looking upon the reliable sources which give significant coverage to the subject, the subject in question of this AfD will be found to pass  & . Nothing has changed since the last AfD in 2011, which multiple editors sited multiple reliable sources to reach consensus that the subject of this current AfD is notable (and even if some those reliable sources cited in the previous AfD are no longer accessible due to link rot, they are still relevant per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:GNG||WP:OFFLINE)

Comment: In my own searching, I'm not seeing sufficient  to pass .  There's plenty of trivial coverage, mostly reports that they endorsed some particular political candidate, and mostly local (Texas) coverage, often in school papers..  I found a few mentions in the NY Times, but just mentions, nothing of any substance.  The single substantive news coverage I found was https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/1/young-conservatives-texas-group-sues-lone-star-col/ this article in The Washington Times, which I had previously never heard of, but turns out to be a Moonie paper, so it's hard to take seriously
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: Please relist this because Drmies' above statement shows that the keep votes don't directly address 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There are plenty of sources discussed in the prior discussions, so the question here seems to be what it means for a source to provide |“significant coverage” of an |organization.  The nominator argues that we need reliable sources discussing all of the background of this organization — articles that discuss its founding, structure, etc. — or sources solely devoted to describing the organization.  While I recognize the concern about verifiability, and while of course we should not be discussing anything in the article that we cannot cite to reliable sources, I don’t think an article must describe all elements of an organization in order to be said to have provided significant coverage of that organization.  Moreover, the notability policy makes clear that a source need not be solely devoted to a topic to provide significant coverage.  Rather, it need only provide sufficient coverage to meet the general notability requirements.  This article seems to meet that standard
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:ORG)