Deletion of Middle Finger Protests (2nd nomination)

Comment: The argument I was trying to make, that you refute by citing  directly supports it. It's tongue in cheek by saying 'there's not enough wikipedia'  makes a clear distinction by what "can be done" and "what should be done" - this article shouldn't be done. The second comment is in regard to promotion, not the poor writing. Often these promotional articles are just written at a different quality - agreed circumstantial at best, but not irrelevant. For your direct comment "That the org's POV is cited in articles on matters being protested is precisely an indicator of notability" does that mean that if a random Joe on the street gives a comment to a newspaper he is now notable? That's nonsense! Newspapers can, and will, take comments from anybody and any organization then print whatever ones get the most clicks. We should seek to distinguish between truly notable groups and ones that are good at getting quips in the paper
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PAPER||WP:PAPER)

Comment: There is sufficient coverage to pass , even though some of it is in passages of a few sentences within articles about wider topics.  Relatively brief material can be , and there is a lot of it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Per {{u|Rathfelder}}.  Nom's dismissive analysis of sources is not convincing.  {{u|LikeMeercats}}'s argument is especially not convincing per .  And the use of  is particularly off base.  That the org's POV is cited in articles on matters being protested is precisely an indicator of notability for such a group.  Finally, regardless of the "spacing issues and the like" we don't delete articles for being written by "somebody unfamiliar with Wikipedia." Special:Contributions/192.160.216.52|192.160.216.52
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PAPER||WP:INHERITED)

Comment: Does not meet . If every protest group got a Wikipedia page, there wouldn't be enough Wikipedia left for the rest of the world. A good amount of the article reads as promotional material for the founder - prior to my edits, it was definitely written by somebody unfamiliar with Wikipedia (coming from somebody still pretty unfamiliar with Wikipedia); a lot of spacing issues and the like. The sources are more about the matters they're protesting than the group itself, and in common a vein of AfD discussions, 'notability is not inherited
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)