Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americans Against Hate (Stephen Marks)

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. Tone 21:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Americans Against Hate (Stephen Marks)[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Founded solely for one-time political purposes in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, not the focus of substantial media coverage, despite a fleeting a mention in Time magazine. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in Time, New York Daily News, The Hotline, O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes. Barely passes WP:ORG. Article just needs cleanup & expansion. Lionel (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The coverage it received was, as the nominator put it "fleeting". A case of WP:RECENTISM. Not notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article.--JayJasper (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Lionel (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nominator points out, it was a group created for the 2000 election and only got small coverage for that. They didn't even have any sort of major or notable role in that election.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It had coverage. Time magazine mentions it [1] and the New York Daily News gives it ample coverage.[2] Dream Focus 00:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A few passing mentions does not confer notability, as a political junkie myself I had never heard of them and looking online I find very little mention. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd just like to caution anyone doing research into this (regardless of how they plan on !voting) not to confuse this group with the terrorism watchdog group, which goes by the same name and has far more of a prominent presence, both online and in the news. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Article does not comply with WP:GNG . The article Is little more then dated political bashing WP:POLITICIAN and WP:SYNTHESIS Nor does the material cite sources directly for the content presented making it original material WP:OR --User:Warrior777 (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addition/edit Nor does it present a neutral point of view. WP:NPOV--User:Warrior777 (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs significant coverage, 3 gnews hits since 2000 hardly cuts it. [3]. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2011 (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.