This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Recruitment advertisement. Hyperlinked web site is blank save for a couple of quotations and links to other sites at the bottom. Notability not established. Uncle G 15:04, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

• Delete: this is a private club of, er, uh, gun owners. The actual Indiana state militia is of course the Indiana National Guard; http://www.inarng.org/ -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • As revised, their notability has been established, and the article is no longer misleading as to their status or their aims. Keep. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I've rewritten it completely, and the first hyperlinked website in the original wasn't blank, just the second. Keep, an armed political militia in the United States, and sadly notable. Samaritan 17:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The first hyperlinked website came up, and still comes up, exactly as described above for me. The first external link in your rewrite comes up as "page not found", too. And the ADL article only refers to the Indiana Militia Corps at all as part of the self-assumed titles of two individuals that it quotes. (The fearless prediction by one of the other sources that John Kerry was certain to be the next president was quite amusing, though.) I like the rewrite, but the broken references still don't quite address the notability problem. You've brought me to Weak Delete. Uncle G 19:39, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
    • I fixed the first link (to this); my bad, and apologies. Samaritan 20:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Er ... that brings up the same blank page with two quotations at the bottom as the original hyperlink on the original article did. Uncle G 19:36, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Of course this is notable, now with Samaritan's re-write. The militia phenomenon and its branches definitely warrant mention in Wikipedia.Kevintoronto 18:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • We aren't voting on "the militia phenomenon", whatever that may be (given that for pretty much as long as the United States has existed groups like this have been springing up calling themselves "armies", "militia", and whatnot, and then disappearing again without making much of a mark upon anything). We are voting on the Indiana Militia Corps. And the question is whether it is encyclopaedia-worthy. Anyone can start a "militia". You could start the Rhode Island Superpower Secessionist Army tomorrow, if you wanted. But anyone can start a band in their garage, too. The question is whether this is a serious militia, or just an excuse for a handful of gun enthusiasts on weekends to prat around in military surplus battle fatigues and get drunk. In other words: Have they passed the "released an album" test? Uncle G 19:39, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
    • The IMC is one element of the militia phenomenon. Their wesbite is fairly extensive and sophisticated, although, admittedly, it could be the work of one person. But, on the other hand, what evidence do we have that they are just five guys and a dog as asked below? (I like dogs.) They could be a sizable group that doesn't disclose their numbers because they are, as one would suspect, a bunch of paranoid freaks. But if the ADL is monitoring them, they are probably a notable bunch of paranoid freaks. (Some of my best friends are... never mind.) I don't think that it is the role of an encyclopaedia to exclude information for fear of publicizing a distasteful group. If someone wants to find a militia in Indiana, they'll find the IMC website pretty darn quickly without Wikipedia's help. Kevintoronto 21:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If the ADL is monitoring them, it's not just three guys in a toolshed whining about the government. As long as it doesn't turn into a promotion, I'm all for this group having an article. – Beginning 19:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless the ADL "monitoring" is something above filing news clippings and press releases ("Red Dog 1, this is Red Dog 3. I have him on visual, it looks like he's heading for his mailbox."), it says nothing about how seriously the ADL takes this particular group. They're referenced by name once on the ADL website, in an article about the (mostly failed) attempts by these various "militia groups" to band together. --Calton 03:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The rewrite is a distinct improvement, but VfD votes are not primarily about the content; they are supposed to be about whether the topic or subject is encyclopedic. A bad article on a valid topic can be cleaned up. A bad article on an invalid topic can be cleaned up by a decent editor, too, and that might be what Samaritan has done here. The question is whether this group is notable. At this point, even with the rewrite, there is no evidence that the Indiana Militia Corps is more than 5 lunatics and a dog out in the woods somewhere in Indiana on summer weekends. The group is only a few years old, for one thing. I want to see more evidence that this is more than a web site and a few demented people. While our norms compel us to have articles about the significant groups, as loathsome as they might be, we shouldn't be in any big rush to give publicity to every little self-important group. --BM 21:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, until verification is established on their notability. Megan1967 23:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• But, on the other hand, what evidence do we have that they are just five guys and a dog...? Boy howdy, have you got it backwards. Delete unless some verifiable information on notability/influence/membership is forthcoming. --Calton 03:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; the ADL kicks off an article by mentioning them http://www.adl.org/extremism/Militia/Coordination.asp , that implies the ADL considers them notable. Kappa 03:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That's the very same, single, peripheral, mention, as part of the self-assumed titles of two individuals that it quotes, that Calton and I have already referred to above. Uncle G 19:36, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
    • The ADL uses them as the first example of a phenomenon, that's like a music journalist using a band as the first example of pokemetal or something, it shows they are at least notable enough to get some attention from people in the business. Kappa 00:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting article. The Oklahoma City bombing 10 years ago shows the potential of groups like this to cause real damage. Capitalistroadster 09:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • We aren't considering that, though. We already have an Oklahoma City bombing article. We are considering the Indiana Militia Corps. And your argument boils down to "They might be notable at some time in the future, so they deserve an article.". We don't buy that argument for individuals (otherwise we'd be buried in articles about every single newborn baby on the planet), or for music bands, so we shouldn't buy it for other groups of people either. Are they notable now? Have they passed the "released an album" test? Uncle G 19:36, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
• keep it and categorize it as Recruitment advertisement Faethon35 09:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This vote is discountable. See that user's entry in Wikipedia:clueless newbies and the further discussion that it links to. Uncle G 19:36, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
• Comment. I wouldn't say that one mention on the ADL website in an article about how militia groups don't seem to be able to get their acts together constitutes evidence that ADL takes this group seriously or is "monitoring" it. --BM 15:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Haven't heard anything that establishes notability. --BM 02:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.