Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryan Liberation Front


 * 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. While the discussion has not yet lasted seven days, I'm closing this currently as the attack component within the article qualifies it for G10 deletion per the later commentors. Also, one of the keep comments is procedural in nature and has been addressed by two other participants. The other keep comment is contingent on references being added, but given that the negative BLP material goes back to the first revision of the article, that should trump the possibility of sourcing the article and expanding it later. At this point, the comments on the unsourced negative BLP component are strong and justify an early close. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Aryan Liberation Front

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is clearly a ZOG page made to try to destroy the blue-eyed founder of the Aryan Liberation Front, and to make sure we lose to ZOG. ZOG-controlled Wikipedia will probably keep this page but WOTAN. Wonderful Ginger (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep This vote is user's first contribution and entire rationale is a confusing rant which I think is about Zionism or something. I would advise the nominator to rewrite their rationale to be clearer and touch on exactly why they feel the article should be deleted.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment For those who may not know, ZOG stands for Zionist Occupation Government. WOTAN stands for Will Of The Aryan Nation. Although the Nom may have some ties to antisemitism, I believe that since this user is brand new, they probably just haven't read any of Wikipedia's policies, such as assuming good faith. I left a note on the user's talk page welcoming them. I see no problem with any of the user's edits or this AfD Nom. Avic enna sis @ 08:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If this was procedurally kept, then I would re-nominate it for deletion, on the grounds that it is a potentially controversial article (about a racially-charged subject) and it does not include any reliable sources--or in fact any sources at all. That's not okay.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  11:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I assumed that "Zog" was the king of Albania and that "Wotan" was a god. Thanks for the clarification. Edison (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * DeletePer WP:BLP1E. Google Book search shows some brief mentions. See, . Seems deletable as a one time news story. Is there evidence the "group" was ever more than one angry teenager?  says the "group" was unheard of before one 17 year old committed some hate-inspired firebombings. See, . Edison (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP1E isn't something we need to consider here because an article about a political organisation isn't a biography of a living person. Our focus should be on the lack of sources.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  12:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the bizarre and grandiose nomination, I agree that the article should be deleted, but for me the grounds are good old-fashioned lack of notability. Very few meaningful g-hits, even less for its supposed ex-leader. The King of Albania may want to keep it, but what does he know ;-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment For an idea of similar articles, see the orgainizations listed in the Template:White nationalism. Based on the other articles, I would say this fails WP:NOTE, and would normally vote Delete, however in the interest of avoiding WP:COI, I am not actually voting here. (Although, at the current time, it seems Delete is the consensus here anyway.) Avic enna sis @ 06:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep if the references are added. As the background for the news event it is justified;  However, there is a BLP consideration: I think the refs are not sufficient to establish Alexis Leirsun as the leader -- the article on him was previously deleted via G10 twice and then A7. That mention would need to be removed.    DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Alexis Leirsund and the ALF were the subjects of high-profile investigations by right-wing Zionist lunatics in 2007 and 2008 in which CIA and Mossad are believed to be involved. The ZOG has repeatedly characterized them as the #1 domestic terror threat in America (a place that actually is held by International Jewry) The Giver in Buggery (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (Indented, blocked user, possible sockpuppet  Chzz  ►  03:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Delete per S Marshall and Dylanfromthenorth; bottom line is, no sources. If the possibly-negative unsourced info is removed, there is nothing left.  Chzz  ►  03:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This appears intended as an attack page, and borders on the speedy-able given the utter lack of sourcing. No prejudice against recreation as a properly framed/referenced article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced attack page about non-notable person. Edward321 (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. How could this sit for 7 days without being G10'd? This falls squarely within WP:CSD as a negative article on an organisation (and named persons) that is entirely unsourced. Perhaps a properly sourced article can be constructed (no doubt highly negative) about the subject. That would be fine. But unsourced attacks on all persons and organisations must be treated the same. That this is about a claimed white supremacist group makes the application of G10 no different. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2010 (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.