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 of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:NOT Aeon 15:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, Aeon1006, please provide detailed rationales in your deletion nominations. How does the article violate WP:NOT? Uncle G 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and wikify. The article is a mess, but the subject seems notable. 66,600 google hits, including articles about the group in Mother Jones, [1] and FoxNews.com [2]. --djrobgordon 17:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and wikify per djrobgordon. --waffle iron ^talk 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- yet another Wikipedia article used by a group's advocates to try to create the impression that it's notable -- it's not, so the article violates WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a place for WP:OR, or for soapboxing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. The information contained in the article is not supported by reputable sources, and as such violates WP:RS and WP:V -- citing to blogs is not appropriate under Wikipedia policy. Morton Devonshire^Yo
• Keep, looks notable to me. Last I checked, Fox News and the New York Times weren't blogs and they seem to think the group is worthy of a story. Recury 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and wikify per djrobgordon. References to group in AP and NY Times support notability. Simon12 03:43, 30 June 2006 (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.