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 delete. There is clear consensus, after good-faith research by two editors, that the organisation does not currently meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Militia Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This is a non-notable organization. I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that discuss (not simply mention) the organization. Article was nominated for deletion in 2005 here [1]. Angryapathy (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepDelete There is also a little on them under a different name e.g. "Members of the Indiana Citizens Volunteer Militia, for example, gather daily on the Internet to share conspiracy theories. They mutter darkly that the feds invented foot-and-mouth disease so they can declare martial law." Daily News and the Indianapolis Star and this book Polargeo (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I don't see any any reliable sourcing that says these two groups are the same group using two different names. It is reasonable to guess that they are different groups with different names. If it could be sourced that they are the same, I would favor an article move, and the Indiana Citizens Volunteer Militia does appear to meet notability standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reserve judgement on this. The only strange thing is that the "Indiana Citizens Volunteer Militia" website now directs to "Indiana Militia Corps" so they are likely the same or one arose from the other but as you say if we cannot find any reliable sources for this then we cannot assume it here. Polargeo (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay some searching shows that although it is a very closely linked it does not appear to be the same thing. Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote as I am unable to find independent verification of their notability. Polargeo (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One clue that these are two different organization is that when you check the html Meta description of the ICVM organization's redirect page[2] it states that they are in no way affiliated. Code snippet cut and pasted below:

<meta name="description" content="The Indiana Militia Corps is a constitutional, 
patriotic organization dedicated to preserving and defending the constitutions 
of the USA and Indiana, and our way of life.  Pro-God, Pro-family, anti-UN, 
anti-racist, pro-liberty. This organization is in no way affiliated with the 
Indiana Citizens Volunteer Militia!">

It is pretty reasonable to guess that these two organizations are different and the ownership of the old ICVM webpage belongs to IMC now, after a schism. That said, guesses have no place in Wikipedia, and there remains a near total lack of reliable sourcing about the IMC group, and we should delete. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This has been thoroughly discussed over on the article talk pageTalk:Indiana_Militia_Corps#notable.3F, in summary, after much looking there is not enough coverage in reliable secondary sources for this group to be considered notable per WP guidelines. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I updated some content showing there is current notability to the Indiana Militia Corps, and I hereby invoke WP:IAR against calls for deletion. The very fact that citizen militias are in the news makes it currently notable, even if nearly all third-party sources refer to militias in the aggregate and not by name. I am finding third-party sources that mention the IMC by name and this should satisfy the concerns presented; but I must also point out that within militia social circles the Indiana Militia Corps is every bit as notable as the Michigan Militia. If the paucity of objective third-party material regarding militias creates the appearance of a lack of notability, we should act in good faith and find the NPOV sources; the restrictive ruleset some here want to apply to the sources for establishing notability won't work with militia groups because advocates for these groups don't publish books the way the anti-militia people do!! The sources you cite are all POV and we can't go that way. The arguments regarding notability are restrictive and exclusionist, and the comments made in that regard evince a bias against this organization. If the Indiana Militia Corps page alone is deleted, then WP may as well delete the Michigan Militia article as well, but I do not see anyone trying to do this.

Also, the Indiana Militia Corps has become truly notable within militia social circles, but only AFTER the ADL, SPLC and Homeland Security gave them free publicity (My inside sources explain that membership is BOOMING since early 2009). With new members joining, their operations are sure to increase, and consequently they WILL be in the news... it is just a matter of time, and I bet we won't have to wait long. Deletion anytime soon would be premature, to say the least.

Also, the extreme controversy over the beneficial/malicious nature of militia groups almost guarantees that there will be those with POV intentions seeking to either delete or alter this article in a POV manner. But the niggling citation of a rule without a good supporting explanation is NOT good enough for me. Wikipedia exists to create and deliver content to web users, and deleting articles on controversial subjects is a form of censorship that I will not tolerate and will most assuredly appeal to the highest arbiters.

Presently it seems to me the rules are being used as an excuse just to delete content, that while neutral, is still apparently objectionable to some. This is itself a violation of policy. How can I say this? Anyone who takes a few hours to study the subject of modern citizen militias will see that 99% of what is being published out there is highly POV against militias, and based on my own research (which I will not discuss here) it is becoming clear to me that the people who are publishing against militias have an agenda; people I interview who are not in a militia but are interested in them also see an agenda at work. I am a political science major (concentration in law enforcement) and I can tell you that politically, where there is smoke there is fire. I have monitored the talk pages on everything relating to citizen militias and seen some pretty uncivil talk go on there, and those with anti-militia views, not acting in good faith, ultimately lost out in their edit wars. If the anti-militia people can't have homogeneity in everything relating to the subject of militias, they want to censor it (read: delete). Playing into their hands in that regard is tantamount to going POV all over this. It is far better to keep the article, keep it neutral, and include new content as frequently and as soon as possible... which I am prepared to do myself as I am paid to study the subject (but I pledge to still uphold WP:NOR).

In the interest of neutrality, fairness, and acting in good faith we must take all of this into account. WP:IAR is a PILLAR, notability is merely a guideline!! PLEASE let's not niggle this and let's NOT be deletionist! Thank you for your time and patience. I am confident that we can continue to improve the article. Barring that, I believe that the articles on these specific militia organizations ought to be merged into the page for the constitutional militia movement. JP419 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a place to publish your own research about militia groups. The Wikimedia has a sister project for the purpose of publishing original research, Wikiversity, which seems to be a more suitable place for your work. That said, I would favor the suggest that this article be moved there instead of deletion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salty, didn't I just get done telling you that I am not putting my own research into this?!? I KNOW that original research isn't allowed!! Sometimes I think you're not listening to me at all. I'll say it again for effect: I'm not adding my own work, I'm researching the subject for third-party content. Got it? Now, would we PLEASE stop niggling and misdirecting? Thank you!!! JP419 (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. In your 13 January explanation just above you wrote "based on my own research". Whether or not you discuss your own research, it is apparent that you are bringing your conclusions into this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the question is not original research, the question is the notability standard. The fact remains that there is very little found in independent reliable sourcing discussing this group. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm to JP419 one of the main reasons for this notability standard is to ensure we can cover the subject in a balanced encyclopedic way. This is not some deletionist attempt at censorship. Wikipedia is not here to repeat what an organisation says about itself on its own websites and blogs along with a few basic qualifications. Polargeo (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If there's any external references. Otherwise Delete. Most of the refs seem to be self-refs or fairly close to self-refs. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage in any independent reliable sources. I really have made an effort to find some after originally voting keep. So I take it this means a delete vote. Polargeo (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, unless somebody finds some. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also have looked very hard and have been able to find only four small mentions in independent sources. I have found zero significant coverage of the group. A single sentence in a 2004 publication by the Anti-Defamation League[3], and a simple mention of the name of the group in a list of militia groups in a publication by the Southern Poverty Law Center[4]. The simple name of the group is also mentioned in a 2008 election manual[5] as a militia group. Recently, JP419 found another mention of the group, which includes a single sentence quote from their website in a background paper[6] by a professor at Stanford University, but that paper appears unpublished and not peer reviewed. The standard[7] here is not simply any coverage, but rather the standard we must look for is significant coverage. There is nothing near to significant coverage here. If we are to follow this policy, we should delete. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Change me to Weak Delete after Salty's work. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2010 (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.