Progressive Victory: An evaluation of the sources in the article (below) show that none of the sources cited contribute towards the group's notability.  Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  Progressive Victory (1) This is the organization's website, so it is not independent of the organization ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ?  Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No Progressive Victory (2) This is the organization's website, so it is not independent of the organization ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ?  Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No The College of Wooster This is an alumni profile by a University that is posted on the university's website.  press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials are not considered to be independent sources for organizations.  ~ This is an alumni profile by a University; it appears to be a self-published blogpost .  There's significant coverage of Hans Johnson in the article, but the organization itself is given only trivial mention.  ✘ No Tubefilter Why not?  Per WP:NPPSG and for sake of argument.  "Progressive Victory" is not so much as mentioned in the article.  ✘ No The Washington Post Why not?  WaPo is a WP:NEWSORG .  "Progressive Victory" is not so much as mentioned in the article.  ✘ No YouTube This is the YouTube channel of "Progressive Victory".  ~ WP:ABOUTSELF .  ?  Moot as clearly non-independent.  ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  I conducted a further search online for sources about the group, which (per the article) was founded in 2022.  I was only able to come up with trivial mentions and non-independent sources: More trivial mentions and non-independent sources Spectrum 1 gives the organization as the employer of Hans Johnson, but doesn't cover the organization itself significantly.  Pasadena Star News has an op-ed written by Johnson, which is clearly a non-independent source.  Los Angeles Blade mentions the group only in passing.  Cincinnati Enquirer hosts an opinion piece by the group's president, which is non-independent.  CalMatters has a guest commentary by Johnson, but that's non-independent.  The name is fairly generic, and the article creator notes the existence of a different group with the same name on the talk page (the group linked from the infobox self-describes itself as being largely a discord server ).  Even with that confounding factor of multiple groups with the same name, a source search makes me conclude that this group fails WP:NGO and should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON #8 for failing to meet the relevant notability criteria.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , Internet ,  and United States of America .  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as nom.  Article creator has since removed reference to Hans Johnson from the article, implying in an edit summary that he's related to a different group also called "Progressive Victory".  The reference to Hans Johnson was first inserted into the article in the first revision .  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Red-tailed Hawk: I agree that this article has few reliable sources.  (In fact, I removed the Wooster College one -- Hans Johnson appears to be completely unaffiliated with this Progressive Victory).  Although Progressive Victory is not mentioned by name in the WaPo or TubeFilter sources, my thinking is:  1. WaPo is reliable and indicates the stream occurred, but provides no direct link  2. TubeFilter is less reliable, but directly links the Progressive Victory embed  3. Streamer & attendee Destiny reposted that stream and described it as "a special event organised by Progressive Victory ".  More broadly, notable streamers Vaush and Destiny worked with PV in 2022 and will in 2024 -- but due to the nature of streaming, their announcements ( eg ) tend to be WP:SELFPUB .  If this article needs to go back to draftspace, so be it!  SocDoneLeft ( talk ) 19:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To respond point-by-point: WP:ORGDEPTH notes that significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.  Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization .  The WaPo piece is about a particular livestream, and, while the NGO may well be involved, there's really nothing in that article that's about the NGO (not even a mention of the NGO's name).  Largely the same as point #1.  Additionally, merely linking/embedding a particular YouTube video does not provide significant coverage of the NGO article subject, particularly when that group is not so much as given a passing mention by name in the text of the article about the event.  WP:INHERITORG states that An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it... [t]he organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable .  In other words, just because some popular streamers have attended an event or worked with the group does not mean that the organization has been conferred notability.  The fact that we don't have significant coverage in any reliable source that so much as mentions the name of the group is the ultimate nail in the coffin for me.  The only alternative I can think of would be to have an article on the particular livestream, but such an article would likely fail to meet WP:NEVENT based off of the sourcing here.  I don't think there's anything to do here at this time but to delete this from the mainspace.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear opinions/arguments from more editors.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Plenty of use of the term, nothing found for this group.  Agree with the source assessment table, nothing we can use for sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I looked online and found little to nothing of note.  There are two pages that link to this article and mention that two streamers were part of a stream sponsored by Progressive Victory but when I checked the sources they never mentioned the org.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete