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.
No such organization, supporters are not organized. Can find no reference that supports organization. References are not for a specific organization, but rather for a group of unrelated supporters. Perhaps a merge to Bundy standoff.reddogsix (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has enduring notability, historic value, and highly developed content with cites. Objecting to deletion and deletion tagging, because there are numerous reputable news organization cites[1][2][3][4][5] showing the validity of the title[1][5][6][7] of this article, and cites showing the existence of the Bundy militia.[2][1][5] Numerous videos, newspaper articles, and imagery exist documenting militia members signing up to join the militia.[3] The contents of the article includes cites. Let wikipedia editors do their work in documenting and improving this article, don't squelch it in its infancy. Recommending removal of the deletion notice.Baleywik (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Baleywik (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Direct quote from article in Los Angeles Times newspaper 24 April 2014 calling it "Bundy's militia".:
"Harry Reid, Nevada's senior senator and the Senate majority leader, branded Bundy's militia 'domestic terrorists,' while the state's other senator, Republican Dean Heller, called them 'patriots.' " [8]John M. Glionna, and Richard Simon (24 April 2014). "At scene of Nevada ranch standoff, 'citizen soldiers' are on guard". The LA Times. Retrieved 26 April 2014.Baleywik (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More citations have been added to the article. Many of the references show the enduring notability and historic value of the subject. They also show the common use of "Bundy's militia", "Bundy militia", "Bundy ranch militia", and "Bundy's security force" to describe the subject. Whether you like or dislike the subject of the article (and we acknowledge that there is much emotional feeling among some editors), there is much proof and logic for the enduring notability of it, and validity as an entry in Wikipedia. Baleywik (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Murphy, Vanessa (19 April 2014). "The Bundy militia, who are they?". KLAS TV Las Vegas News. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Flynn, Michael (16 April 2014). "Amazing footage captures Bundy's militia standoff with BLM & Police". The Independent, News, St. George Utah. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Macneal, Caitlin. "Harry Reid Calls Bundy Supporters 'Domestic Terrorists'". Talking Points Memo, TPM Media LLC. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Jimmy. "Bundy Militia Protester Advocates Women As Human Shields". The 405 Media. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
John M. Glionna, and Richard Simon (24 April 2014). "At scene of Nevada ranch standoff, 'citizen soldiers' are on guard". The LA Times. Retrieved 26 April 2014.
Pags, Joe. "Bundy Ranch Militia Considered Using Women As Human Shield". WOAI Radio. The Joe Pags Show, WOAI Radio. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Colmes, Alan. "Bundy Ranch Militia Considered Using Women As Human Shields". Liberaland. Alan Colmes, Liberaland. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Pennacchia, Robyn. "Charming Bundy Ranch Militia Dude Brags About Planning To Use Women As Human Shields". Death and Taxes Mag. Death and Taxes Magazine. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Associated Press. "Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy revels in dispute over land". SF Gate, Hearst Communications. Retrieved 20 April 2014.
Pleasance, Chris (18 April 2014). "Domestic terrorists. Senator Harry Reid brands Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters enemies of the US". The Daily Mail, Newspaper, UK. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Daniel Hernandez, and Joseph Langdon (13 April 2014). "Federal rangers face off against armed protesters in Nevada 'range war'". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Allen, Jonathan (17 April 2014). "Bundy Ranch Standoff Emboldens Militia Groups". Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Komenda, Ed (10 April 2014). "Militiamen make their presence felt in protest of BLM’s livestock grab". Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Allen, Jonathan (17 April 2014). "After Nevada ranch stand-off, emboldened militias ask: where next?". Retrieved 19 April 2014.
Solodow, Joseph Latin Alive: The Survival of Latin in English and the Romance Languages, Cambridge University Press, 2010 p.160 "out of the phrase posse comitatus “the force of the county” arose our present use of posse for a group of men whom the sheriff calls upon in a crisis."
Marks, Kathy (1996). Faces of right wing extremism. Branden Publishing Company. p. 146. ISBN978-0-8283-2016-0.
John Wallace, American Patriot Movement
The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences By Jane Parish
Right-wing Counterculture Uses Waco as Rallying Cry| Herald-Journal 24 April 1995
Salon.com Books | America's homegrown terrorists
Winerip, Michael (June 23, 1996). "Ohio Case Typifies the Tensions Between Militia Groups and Law". The New York Times.
It has been noted that during a recent half hour, the editor Cwobeel (talk | contribs) has blanked 75% of the article, blanked 75% of the cites and references, and blanked the entire infobox. Please note that the AfD "Articles for deletion" process specifically forbids blanking of this article. We urge the restoration of the article to its pre-blanked state. The article is new, and it is a work in progress by multiple editors. If one requires better references, the addition of "citation needed" tags are preferable over indiscriminate blanking and removal of existing cites. Baleywik (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not blanked the article. Blanking means deleting all content. What I have done is to remove all content that was unsourced, poorly sourced, or that was blatant WP:OR. Cwobeel (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bundy standoff is an article about a 20 year legal dispute, although it contains some Bundy-related conflicts. The Bundy militia article is specifically about the Bundy militia movement organization itself. They are quite different things.Baleywik (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Baleywik (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such organization exists. This is just a fork to put content while the main page has been locked down because of inappropriate attempts to edit war original research into the article. [1] Baleywik is also inappropriately canvassing on the Bundy standoff talk page. We need some more administrator coverage to snip these problems in the bud. 173.153.4.250 (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC) — 173.153.4.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete None of the sources cited use the phrase 'Bundy Militia' except the KLAS article, and that uses it only in its headline; it does not appear within the body of the text. No source that I could find (outside reddit & blogs) makes the explicit claim that there is an actual entity called 'The Bundy Militia'. I found no statements to that effect by any of the participants, not even from Cliven Bundy. No Official Document, no uniforms, no apparent continuance of the loose and informal coalition as the situation defuses. There is no such thing as The Bundy Militia. (Also, I'm afraid it must be noted that the main advocate above, User:Baleywik, is also the creator and primary author of the contested article. For this and other reasons I don't feel this editor's advocacy is entirely neutral in this case.) Eaglizard (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I found nothing in this article that merits inclusion in Bundy standoff, except perhaps the statement that Bundy "sent letters entitled "Range War Emergency Notice and Demand for Protection" to county, state, and federal officials". Nearly all the facts in this article merely recap the existing 'standoff' article. This is why I do not support a merge.Eaglizard (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When I originally AfD the article, I suggested a possible merge. However, as I look at the evidence and support, I believe a deletion is a better solution than a merge. reddogsix (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge The organization is not noit notable and appears mostly as response to the single event. Bundy doesn't appear to have any control or authority so the title is problematic as well. --DHeyward (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such organization exists. Any encyclopedic content that has been added to the page should certainly be considered for Bundy standoff or perhaps Domestic_terrorism#Examples (depending on if the situation evolves into any bloodshed), but generally the article can only serve as a future lighting rod for edit wars and NPoV language. 75.119.90.35 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale outlined by Baleywik. If that cannot be done, then merge the material with "Bundy standoff" as a last resort. The problems raised here should be resolved through the editing process and I do not see a valid basis for deletion of a subject that is without question worthy of note. Aranciataaa (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)— Aranciataaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I know Google is not definitive of anything, but still. There's only forty seven (47) hits for "The Bundy Militia". 47. Total. And only ONE of them is a cite-able source, the KLAS TV Las Vegas News report titled "The Bundy militia, who are they?", and that report does NOT contain the phrase "Bundy Militia" in it's text. There is no evidence that a "Bundy Militia" exists. How can a non-existent topic be notable? Eaglizard (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just checked that article and cleaned it up from all the blatant WP:NOR violations. After the cleanup there is nothing left there to be notable. Cwobeel (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Blanking in progress - It has been noted that during a recent half hour, the editor Cwobeel (talk | contribs) has blanked 75% of the article, blanked 75% of the cites and references, and blanked the entire infobox. Please note that the AfD "Articles for deletion" process specifically forbids blanking of this article. We urge the restoration of the article to its pre-blanked state. The article is new, and new articles are often complex works in progress, that build up references and refine wording over a few weeks or months. It is normal procedure to tag articles with appropriate tags such as "OR" or "citation needed" rather than blanking. Additionally, the AfD process forbids blanking. Baleywik (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to edit the article through the AFD process. What I have done is to bring to bear editing policies of WP:V on the article, which was a total disaster when I encountered it with a multitude of WP:OR and WP:ADVOCACY violations. You are welcome to continue editing the article if you abide by content policies. Cwobeel (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Blanking in progress - It has been noted that the editor Cwobeel (talk | contribs) has for the 2nd time, blanked 75% of the article, blanked 75% of the cites and references, blanked the entire infobox, and blanked every section title. Please note that the AfD "Articles for deletion" process specifically forbids blanking of this article. Baleywik (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was initially going to advocate merging but after reading the Bundy standoff article, it looks like most of the pertinent, referenced and neutral information about the militia has already been incorporated in that article. So really the only course of action left is to delete this and recreate the title as a redirect to the main article about the standoff. AgneCheese/Wine20:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Corruption of this AfD Process - Due to ongoing blanking and edit warring by Cwobeel, it certainly appears that this AfD review process is being corrupted. When the references, cites, section structure, and other elements of an article in AfD are blanked, it unfairly unbalances and skews the article's AfD process. The questions of whether to Keep, Delete, Merge, etc., can not be honestly be considered while the article is under attack.Baleywik (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Baleywik's multiple complaints about "blanking" (in reference to another editor's deletion of assorted article content that violates policy) are irrelevant (and disruptive) in this discussion, which is about deleting the article altogether. Fact is, there's no such organization as the Bundy Militia. And the article is crap. Flush it. Writegeist (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Update: Multiple WikiProjects and editors - Multiple editors are involved in editing the article. Various WikiProjects participants are involved, including WikiProjects peer reviews. This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Baleywik (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the nominator of the article, I have watched the arguments with interest. The basic idea behind this AfD is there is no formal militia, just a bunch of supporters that are gathered there. There is no formal organization. A number of people, newsgroups, etc. have started calling the supporters a "militia" - this does not create an organization. I can call a dog a cat, but my ignorance or misplaced analysis does not transform one thing into another. I have seen comments that the organization is "secretive" and "they have a list on paper of members, [but] they have not published it on the web." Perhaps, but the references that are included in the article are all from others not necessarily associated with the supporters or the alleged "militia" and those references do not support the idea of a formal association. I still see no evidence that this is nothing more than a group of supporters gathered there to do just that support the individual. reddogsix (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a n obvious case of WP:ADVOCACY. The only user opposed to the deletion, is also uploading purported symbols of this group, see for example: File:BundyMilitiaSymbol.png - Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. Cwobeel (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any valid arguments for keep here. Your points are valid and even after this time, still are valid even with more news articles. Even at this point in time, there is contention among being called a "patriot group" or "militia". It's a giant mess and I think there might be a bit or two worth keeping, it certainly wouldn't qualify for it's own entry. It's also unclear in a couple of these sources whether they are actually using militia as described by this article. Right now, it's fast and loose with the term. Seola (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bundy standoff per Baleywik’s keep arguments, and the nom’s original merge alternative. I believe this is a keep, but decided that although there are sufficient RS for notability, it really needs to be in the standoff articles for context and there is overlap. So merge whatever isn't there already and make this a redirect.
1. There are at least three journalistic sources for Bundy Militia. Even the paper of record, The New York Times uses militia in its recent article, referring to Bundy as a symbol of their cause. Quote follows:
The crowds may be beginning to dwindle, but for much of the past two weeks, here at Mr. Bundy’s ranch in Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, the rancher has been a celebrity, drawing hundreds of supporters, including dozens of militia members, many carrying sidearms, and members of Oath Keepers, a militia group, who have embraced him as a symbol of their anger and a bulwark against federal abuse.— NY Times, 4-23-14
2. Organizations do not have to be formal, as some claim, to be notable. From a legal standpoint, unincorporated associations (or organizations) are just two or more people with a shared purpose. No uniforms are necessary. A prime example is Occupy Wall Street which is intentionally a decentralized, highly informal group without officers, directors, or bylaws, and is unregistered and unincorporated, and yet that organization is clearly notable by any criteria. The Wikipedia test for notability is if there are independent reliable sources, not the degree of structure. And there are sufficient RS as indicated by Baleywik in a long list of sources.
3. Further, blanking some 75% of the article, twice, during an ongoing AfD unfairly influences the AfD process.
4. And I think Knowkedgekid87 made a point with the JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument.
Merge with Bundy standoff - With the condition that any of this is salvageable. There is quite a bit of contention on even the existence of a formed militia (recognized or not) and and whether these sources are even valid. If any can be picked out for usefulness, it can be merged. I do not see, even with the list of sources included, anything pertinent or new. A coalition of militias may be more accurate since none of them actually joined forces but rather showed up for the same reason. This also runs contradictory with people there. Not everyone from militias were armed at this standoff, not everyone there was militia and none of them in different sources with interviews even remotely suggested working together for a purpose other than "defend Bundy" and even more so, while on the ground, all stated different purposes for being there. Some from one militia would interview with ready to meet anything with force versus another who said the government would have to shoot first. So even in one place, once there, they weren't in agreement on cause, methods or actions. If 10 churches show up at an anti-abortion rally, you don't call them a single church once they are there just because they have one cause in common. It may have some notability in a paragraph, but not enough or even remotely provable for a separate page. Wiki is fact based. Headlines are not always and the use of a headline as a source is dubious at best. Unless they designate themselves a single militia, I feel it doesn't mean any guidelines at all. I also have issues with the many, many violations of the page creator and the inability to discuss rationally or follow Wiki instruction. If this were to remain as a separate page, it would need a multitude of editors to remove bias, campaigning for the cause, OR and even canvassing violations. Personally, regardless of outcome of this, I recommend action against the page creator for repeated violations of Wiki's policy and I'd go as far to say spamming. Seola (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Seola: Merging implies a redirect, unless you are pressing for a merge and delete. Keeping a redirect without deleting and salting the deleted article, will mean that the concept of a "Bundy militia" (which is non-existent) will remain in the pedia. Cwobeel (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a remarkable and newsworthy action -of global significance - whatever your politics - well at least keep till we see what emerges out of the movement - if it fizzes into an anti climax may be then merge. The court case is old and is also similar to other campaigns that people have had with the government over taxes and fees - but here we have people coming out from across the country; people are taking up arms against the US govt - not seen since 1865 - or perhaps if we are thinking of the North American continent - the North West rebellion of 1885 in Canada. I dont say it is admirable but it is highly newsworthy - also consider that there would be wikipedia articles if it were happening in Eastern Europe or the Middle EastBebe Jumeau (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of order - People fighting the government isn't exactly unprecedented: violent examples would be Ruby Ridge, Waco siege, Timothy McVeigh. There's plenty of small militias out there who've had their own run-ins with the law, they just didn't draw as much attention. This particular example is already well covered under Bundy standoff, there's no reason to have a separate article on the ad-hoc militia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite22:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
1. Despite claims that this organization does not exist, one of the bedrock Wikipedia policies for inclusion is not what some people believe, or want to believe, to be the truth about the existence, or not, of the Bundy Militia, but rather that organization's verifiability by using independent, reliable sources.
2. There are three RS that report on this situation, using the term Bundy Militia: The LA Times, KLAS-TV, and the Southern Utah Independent, among the sources listed above by Baleywik. The LA Times is an unimpeachable mainstream high quality journalistic reliable source. And that was the source that convinced me to !vote for merge.
3. Further, the LA Times reports that there is a leader, camp commander Jerry DeLemus, and the area where the Bundy Militia is bivouacked is named Camp Tripwire. What else do you want; a charter, TO&E, bylaws, or certificate of incorporation?
4. There seems to be a misunderstanding about the definition of organization. Suppose a group of church ladies, from different churches, get together to hold a monster bake sale to support the local animal shelter that needs funds. That organization is ad-hoc, highly informal, unstructured, and short lived, but it is an organization nevertheless (although almost certainly not notable for Wikipedia).
5. Even if the LA Times didn't do a feature piece on Bundy’s Militia, it would still exist, despite that apparently some people wished it didn’t.
6. This issue is a highly polarizing one, involving multiple viewpoints, agendas, and politics. The more I read and think about this, the more I'm sure that this should not be a separate article, for reasons of duplication, and potential POV, so I agree with all those that !voted Merge (as primary or alternative) and the keep arguments that also apply to merge. Merging is an editorial process and all the usual editing policies and conventions on content apply.
No one is arguing that militiamen didn't come to Bundy's aid; they did. But it is not a "Bundy's militia". That is at the core of this discussion. Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cwobeel has made the relevant point. There is no organization known as "Bundy's militia," just a bunch of folks who showed up once Bundy made TV (and most of whom dispersed after the initial standoff & Bundy's racist comments). The "bake sale" argument is no more an organization than this is. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite00:22, 2 May 2014 (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.