Deletion of Bureaucrash (2nd nomination)

Comment: I tagged this for rescue, but looking at the history this does not even seem to have been necessary; the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bureaucrash&oldid=277696973 nominated version contained http://washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/27/20061127-105159-3650r/?page=3 this ref, which is a three page article exclusively about the subject in a mainstream, high-circulation newspaper, satisfying beyond doubt the |general notability guideline. The other sources added, mentioned by Michael Q. Schmidt above, only underline this. As SoWhy notes, issues with the article could easily have been rectified through normal editing. I notice that the article was not tagged for notability nor was a discussion about notability initiated on the talkpage; either of these steps would have negated the need for a deletion discussion. The nomination is only a critque of the past and then-present state of the article, and did not address it's |potential. I would urge the nominator to follow  and use AfD as a last resort in future
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POTENTIAL||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Meets , and the original deletion decision was incorrect
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: Per , I think this is a fine addition to Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per . The article was easily improvable as MichaelQSchmidt points out and was improved now. Having coverage in newspapers and suchlike establishes notability quite well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Looking at the 16 references, I see 3 YouTube links, 4 links to the groups' websites, 6 trival mentions (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122221440058969313.html?mod=googlenews_wsj, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/magazine/4088584.stm, http://books.google.com/books?id=ltu3AAAAIAAJ&q=Bureaucrash&dq=Bureaucrash&ei=wb2-ScChJoLOlQTJmoH2Dw&pgis=1, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/healthscience/stories/DN-SICKO_30bus.ART.State.Edition1.36d691c.html, http://books.google.com/books?id=XGBp415LyrAC&pg=PA144&dq=Bureaucrash&ei=wb2-ScChJoLOlQTJmoH2Dw#PPA144,M1, http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2001-03-16/article/3907?headline=Debate-strong-over-controversial-speech), 1 blog (http://blogs.sltrib.com/movies/2007/07/sicko-spin-patrol-continued.htm), 1 book I can't check and 1 proper article at the Washington Times. I think it fails , not enough '''significant coverage''' in multiple '''reliable''' and '''independent''' sources has been shown
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: Tag for leanup and more sources. Looking at the article I find a number of reliable sources (Dallas Morning News, Salt Lake Tribune, The Berkeley Daily Planet, Wall Street Journal, BBC News), and see the SPS only used as . Doing a cursory search on http://books.google.com/books?q=Bureaucrash&hl=en&tab=np Google Books and http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=Bureaucrash Google News there appears to be a number of additional reliable sources that show meeting . Granted these need to be gone through, but the volume suggests notability. It must be noted that 1) the last article by this name was over 2 years ago where only 2 editors chose to !vote at the then AfD, and 2) additional sources are now available since that earlier deletion. I have no idea how the earlier may have been written, but this version looks to have met concerns. Issues with this article can be addressed without a deletion based upon a few poorer sources or the deletion of a article by this name 27 months ago
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C||WP:V||WP:GNG)