Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Freedom Journal


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 02:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

American Freedom Journal

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Evidently defunct publication with no refs or working links. (More info from originator of AfD: *I didn't find anything that suggests it still exists. According to this 1989 entry it is/was a publication of American Freedom Coalition which in wikipedia redirects to List of Unification Church affiliated organizations. It's listing there only refers to a 2001 article. But there is no direct link to either the organization or the publication in first 30 odd google returns (besides wikipedia knockoffs), where it surely would be if it still exists.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep - Can you source where you have heard it is defunct? I can't find anything to suggest that. Keep until nom is clarified. As it stands, no real reason for deletion has been given. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  12:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, can find no references later than 1990, was an offshoot of the Unification Church. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails verifiability, no evidence this journal actually exists, let alone that it is notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Three people think it needs to go. I gave a real reason - did User:Jenuk1985 ever see it? Will leave a message on talk page. If there were any reliable sources that it had some importance in the past, I would not have nominated it. It just makes wikipedia look like no one's paying attention.  CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My keep opinion still stands, I haven't seen anything to change my mind. The relist was a good call, there hasn't been enough response to establish a reasonable consensus Jenuk1985  |  Talk  00:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Being defunct is irrelevant -- so is Genghis Khan. Google finds a reasonable number of references to this publication. From what I can tell it was a neo-con/far right publication with no link to the Unification Church . Pburka (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact it looks like it was a Moony publication. I've rewritten the article using only information I could reference properly. Pburka (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Pburka - appears to have been significant within the American right/far-right, secondary coverage exists. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep People have shown that this is verifiable in reliable sources.  I personally find this sort of topic very interesting/useful to include in wikipedia even when there is only enough sourceable material for a brief article.  Cazort (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sourcing, whether dead or alive. DGG (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No references or sources. Searched the title on Google but nothing much available. DinajGao (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.