Talk:Reclaim New York

Does this group still do things?

I am confused as to whether this group is still active. It might be a temporary glitch but I tried to click onto their website this morning to see what they have to say for themselves, and it wasn't working. Apart from that, most of the references in this little article are to activities from years ago that even then -- although they earned mentions here and there -- seem kind of minor. Novellasyes (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: I was finally able to get on their website. The front page of it is advertising a webinar they held in June 2021 about redistricting. It's a very sparse website. It has their 990 from 2017 but nothing subsequent to that. They have an "acting executive director" and no other staff mentioned. Novellasyes (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 was less than two months ago, What's the issue? [I think this comment was inserted by Inf-in MD. I have added indentation. Novellasyes (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)]

FWIW, the website says "June 21st" not "June 2021". Marquardtika (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If you view the webinar materials, it is obvious that that it was 2021. It references "In April 2021, the Census Bureau announced New York would lose one congressional district". I don't see an issue with inactivity. [I think this comment was inserted by Inf-in MD.Novellasyes (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)]

To me, the issue is that all they appear to have done in 2021 is host one or maybe two webinars. This is an extremely slight level of activity. Wikipedia wouldn't normally have an article about a group whose activity was that tiny. In years past, they (Reclaim New York) seemingly had a couple of years that they did activities in the range of $500,000 to $1 million a year. Even that is way less than the annual financial level of many organizations that WP wouldn't normally think are worth a whole article. But it's a lot more than a couple of webinars. I noticed the creation of this article because some months ago for reasons I can't recall, I did an edit on the Rebekah Mercer article so I got one of those notifications you get when an article you've edited gets a subsequent edit. I saw that and that led here. I'm saying this because I also want to say that Rebekah Mercer and her father seem to me to get involved in all kinds of very expensive conservative activities. If one were to make a list of all of those activities -- which include Cambridge Analytica, Parler and Breitbart -- in all seriousness, would this org even compare to those as something that matters? I'm not trying to be argumentative here but I just don't get it. Novellasyes (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think the criteria for an article on a group has nothing to do with how much activity they did in a given year, or their budget, but the amount of coverage the group gets. There are 22 sources for this article, which is a fair amount. [this comment was inserted by Inf-in MD ]

Inf-in MD, you are correct. Wikipedia's notability guidelines don't consider a group's level of activity (budget, events, etc.) as being relevant to the group's notability. The relevant guideline is WP:GNG, and more specifically, WP:ORG. It all has to do with whether an article subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. This article has quite a few sources, but it doesn't look like many of them feature significant coverage of Reclaim New York. The group is mostly mentioned incidentally or in passing in the sources we're currently using. Like I said below, I think it makes sense to move content from this page to the articles on the Mercers. I don't have a strong opinion on whether this article should continue to exist in its current form, be redirected, or be deleted. The article creator, Apocheir, said below that they think it would be reasonable to redirect. Maybe we take a chunk of the text from this article, put it in Robert Mercer's article, then redirect this article there? Marquardtika (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I would be ok with that. [this comment was inserted by Inf-in MD ]

But I would add that quite a few of the sources, like this one - https://theberkshireedge.com/reclaim-new-york-mercer-funded-bannon-guided-campaign-sows-distrust-in-local-government/ - do feature significant coverage of the group. [this comment was inserted by Inf-in MD ]

Yes, the Berkshire Edge source does provide significant coverage, but I doubt whether that's a reliable source. It looks to be a small local outlet and the author is a college student. Marquardtika (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, What about WRVO? [this comment was inserted by Inf-in MD ]

Inf-in MD. Here is a page that explains how to "sign" your posts on talk pages. Novellasyes (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC) strike sock

It doesn't look to be active. They haven't posted on social media in over two years. A July 2019 article says the group was downsizing and reducing operations. The same article says the group "hasn't become a force in New York politics." I don't know that this article passes WP:SIGCOV or WP:SUSTAINED. I would recommend that some of the content here be placed at the pages of Robert Mercer, Rebekah Mercer, Steve Bannon, etc. It is only mentioned in passing, if at all, on those pages at present. Marquardtika (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I didn't find as much coverage on this group as I thought I would when I started... I agree that it's probably reasonable to redirect this to Robert Mercer and merge some of the text there. -Apocheir (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)