Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClearPath Foundation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ClearPath Foundation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Thirteen of the 14 references here violate WP:RS. 100% promotional, and the organization itself hardly meets WP:NOTE. Dorama285 (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington D.C.-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There seems to be some other coverage of their lobbying like here, here, and here. If it is kept the article should integrate the sources and take out the promotional stuff.
Keep: lots of news coverage:

Mother Jones: What’s the Real Deal With This GOP Megadonor Who’s Claimed He Wants Climate Action? [1]

Politico: Republican pledges $175 million to push party on climate [2]

Charlotte Observer "Jay Faison hopes his latest start-up can change minds on climate change [3].IceFishing (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An alternative: Merge with the page for Jay Faison. It has the same sourcing issues, but together, the two could become one page with a few legitimate citations. Dorama285 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think it makes more sense to keep both pages.IceFishing (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, I admit that I had never heard of Faison or his "environmental" foundation before stumbling into this discussion, and that it/he is not my shade of green. So I looked for him, and found not only Mother Jones' deep dive (linked above) but Politico 50 [4]; Washington Post says he's a big-money donor in Virginia politics [5], founded a company called SnapAV which he sold for enough to start ClearPath [6] and lots more in news searches. As for ClearPath, there is both recent: September 2019: Charleston’s biggest Dutch Dialogues funder is a GOP climate advocate [ https://www.postandcourier.com/news/charleston-s-biggest-dutch-dialogues-funder-is-a-gop-climate/article_5263bfee-c90a-11e9-be3d-478b04fbaa10.html] ; Axios :[7], and in depth coverage going back years. Some of it, from just five years ago, can feel like it comes from a different century: The Atlantic: What Will It Take to Get Climate Change on the Republican Agenda? An entrepreneur plans to find out by spending $175 million with the aim of encouraging Republican politicians to address climate change. [8]. But here's the thing, when a search of the New York Times shows leaders of the ClearPath being quoted and mentioned pretty regularly: [9], [10], [11], rest of search here: [12], and do does the Wall Street Journal [13], [14] and the Washington Post : [15], [16], [17]... I could go on, bu tthis is exactly the sort of subject that you go to Wikipedia for after you read the newspaper.IceFishing (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Politico and Charlotte Observer are certainly RS and therefore passes GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:53, 28 January 2020 (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.