Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hutaree


 * 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 as this is pretty clearly snowballing in that direction. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hutaree
fails WP:NOT. Ironholds (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT, WP:SBST and WP:EVENT with no prejudice against recreation. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources prior to yesterday (March 28), and no particular reason to think it will receive a large amount in the future.  Also no evidence of having lasting effects or geographical scope within the meaning of WP:EVENT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Michigan Militia, this is part of a long, long story of armed groups in Michigan. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't believe this has anything to do with the Michigan Militia organization, does it? Kuralyov (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed it does not.  The Michigan Militia is a specific organization.  This is a separate, militia-type organization, that has some members if the state of Michigan.  Not even remotely the same thing. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS 63.215.29.202 (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect per Ed above. If this gets a lot more attention eventually restore as separate article. -R. fiend (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tentative Keep, after realizing I misread, thinking the Michigan Militia article was a general piece on militia in Michigan. If this group is never heard of again after a day or two we can revisit then (I doubt it will be). -R. fiend (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As of today's (3/29/10) indictment for plotting to attack the US Government, I think the Hutarees have become newsworthy. Axeman89 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "FBI raids on the Hutaree Christian militia brought to light this formerly little-known group based in Adrian, Michigan." see Juan Cole Informed Comment. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Big story on CNN today.Ekem (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Pretty serious indictments being brought by the US Attorney's Office. They are indicted on Attempted use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Also indicted on charges of seditious conspiracy. A plot to use Weapons of Mass destruction to kill Law Enforcement Officers attending a funeral for another Officer, whom, it is alleged, the Hutaree planned to kill also, seems quite notable to me. Similar to Aum Shinrikyo, they may be mostly notable for the current events, but other information on their activities prior to the this will no doubt come up, and a more complete article on the group can be produced. Malbolge (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep This is a pretty major event and is getting sufficient news coverage to justify an article. Kuralyov (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. A brief description may be merited in some list-type article. Ray  Talk 19:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I've seen much less noteworthy items on Wikipedia.Squad51 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, as this group had the potential to cause major damage. While we can't ever know how many would've died, these people had an extensive plan, and the indictment makes clear that this group had a potent plan of action. We should also expand or move the article as more information arises. Just because it's on the news doesn't mean it should be off of Wikipedia. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, the group is now the subject of significant coverage. Picked up by the AP an LATIMES. Also being tracked by the SPLC.  Surv1v4l1st (Talk 20:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- The purpose of WP:NOTNEWS, at least as I interpret it, is to keep us from the minutae of everyday life, and claiming its wiki-worthy, not to allow deletion of something merely because its in the news. The question remains then, is it just a story thats in the news, and thus not encyclopedic, or is it something thats encyclopedic, and just happens to be in the news? I personally feel it is the latter, as I'm reminded of the Branch Davidians, in some respects, or of the incident at Ruby Ridge. That said, I'm willing to concede that the immediacy of the story might make it seem more encyclopedic than it actually is. So if the article is kept now, a re-visit in several months might be worthwhile. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside For what its worth (and this is complete crystalballing on my part), I think its possible that, based on the kinds of submissions this story saw on fark yesteday, this might become some sort of rallying point for right wing politics. Again, this is just a hunch, so take it with a rather large grain of salt. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep - this illustrates the kind of wrong thinking that gives anybody who REALLY knows and loves Jesus Christ two basic reactions. 1) Sadness that He is so badly misrepresented and that such terrible things are done in His name and 2) The incentive to tell the world that this is absolutely not what He stands for. He was no pushover but He stood for loving enemies, turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, loving one's neighbour as oneself and ABOVE all that - He is the Living God in human form and He embodies Truth. Source, the New Testament, Holy Scripture. You should read it for yourself before you give any credence to anybody who professes to do anything wrong in His name (and anything right come to that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mummifiedartist (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now at least. Included on some well-known news sites, and the story could well get bigger.  If in three months nothing more has happened with them, I'd go delete. Kaid100 (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the above. But something tells me this story isn't over. Certainly the article will expand as we find out more about how this 'organization' works. One of the more siginigent domestic terrorism events in recent history. FinalWish (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, Hutaree is a distinctive group. Just because they are lead by people in Michigan does not mean they have any connection with the Michigan Militia.  The later name refers to a specific 1990s group that existed in Michigan, with a specific operation and phylosophy.  The Hutaree have a different goal and philosophy, although they are at the surface similar.  This is a distinct organization which clearly has its own history, and maybe even qualifies as a distict religious organization.  To group them with other militia groups just does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The FBI raids were in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, so this is not just a Michigan organization. The Michigan Militia and other 1990s organizations of that type were focused on state soverignty.  That is not at all the goal of this group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per above - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, they've certainly become sufficiently notable now that we would need a distinct reason not to include them in WP, be they a hundred sticks short of a bundle or more. Trigaranus (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The following comment was placed on the talk page by another user; I'm copying it here in good faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding a deletion of the Hutaree article -- I advise the opposite. An organization that has brought significant attention to itself needs to be known and examined. Its extent, influence, resources, financing, supporters, detractors and more are important to a degree that no one can calculate. This is a crucial aspect of social transparency. It is acutely relevant to our sense of civil peace and order. Finally, on a personal level, and as a resident of Michigan, this is in my back yard and I want to have a clear idea of what these kind of groups are and how they may or may not endanger me. Do not delete, please. Rather, get more information so that we are not resorting to rumor and paranoia as our only resources. Mr. Eldron Long 63.236.226.130 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

207.181.235.214 (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems to go well beyond one single news story. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and don't merge. Hutaree is now notable and apparently different from Michigan Militia.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and don't merge. Many will look to wikipedia for a brief, balanced account for who or what this group is/was.  Probably the article will change a thousand times in the next weeks and months, but that is not a reason to delete.   WP:NOT is relevant to how the article is to be written, not whether there should one.   Buck  ets  ofg  22:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This organization is notable as an armed militant organization. Portal:Current events lays out their most recent plan: To kill a police officer and attack his funeral. They might attempt something like this again in the future, or they might fail, but, as stipulated by the P:CE entry, they are clearly trying to wage war against all levels of the United States. If an article about a group that sells pipe bombs to the public, plans to kill law enforcement officials, and was raided by the FBI is not article-worthy, then I don't know what is. The current content of the article may need to be revised to meet NOTNEWS policies, however. On top of that, however, I have seen them training. They are heavily armed militants, not just religious fanatics.--RM (Be my friend) 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's become noteworthy, and probably was listed in the FBI database for homegrown militia groups long before they popped onto the American Consciousness. More info than their website is warranted, as that info is rather misleading. -
 * Keep There have been nine indictments from this group, it maintains a presence separate from other organizations, and it's going to be in the news for at least two or three years. I agree with the comment above that if this isn't worthy of an entry, what is? Mveric (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep* There was a call to delete the Balloon Boy article, but that ended up turning into a real article. We should definitely keep this article for some time and see how it gets cleaned up. If there isn't enough done, then we should at least harvest the article and place it into an article about right-wing militias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishvara7 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - One of the weakest AfDs I've ever seen. The article has adequate sourcing, it is about a notable subject, and (contrary to what the nominator wrote) clearly does not fail WP:NOT. Is there an ulterior motive in this nomination? 71.77.21.198 (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith and remember that ad hominem attacks do little to support your position. WP:NOT says in part: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. [...] See also WP:EVENT."  WP:EVENT requires that for events to qualify as more than merely news reporting they require signficant geographical scope and/or lasting impact.  In what way do you say this article doesn't run afoul of those two policies? - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Asking a question is not failing to assume good faith. DustFormsWords, please assume good faith. The article is about a notable topic and is properly sourced. That is quite sufficient for keeping the article, contrary to any other contrivance for removing the article. Please provide your evidence that the article is not about a notable topic or is not properly sourced. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Questioning someone's motives is a failure to assume good faith but I accept your word you didn't mean to do that; thank you! If you read WP:DEL you'll see that a lack of sources isn't a reason to delete an article, and a lack of notability is one of a large number of reasons an article may be deleted.  Another reason is "any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia", which includes a link directing readers to WP:NOT, a subsection of which is WP:NOT, which incorporates the guidelines at WP:EVENT.  As per my comment above, I believe the article fundamentally is not compatible with the provisions of WP:NOT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So far I haven't seen your specific evidence (beyond your opinion and lots of wikilinks) that the article "is not compatible with the provisions of WP:NOT". And that's fine, as long as we call it what it is: your opinion. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind that I don't have to convince you, I have to convince the closing nominator, my "evidence" is set out in my first comment at the very top of this thread. The onus in passing WP:NOTNEWS falls upon the article, and to do so it must pass the tests described at WP:EVENT, being evidence of a national or international scope and/or a lasting impact.  The events here are so recent that it's impossible to show a lasting impact, so what you're left with is national or international scope, which the article neither asserts nor proves. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind that the onus of convincing the closing administrator (not the closing nominator) is on you, let's see if you succeed. As for your comment, "The events here are so recent that it's impossible to show a lasting impact", that completely ignores the argument presented elsewhere in this AfD that being in the news and failing WP:NOT are not the same; by that criterion, the events of September 11, 2001 would not have merited a Wikipedia article until October 11, 2001. Your argument also ignores all other aspects of the subject of this article besides the events of the last day or two. But as I said, that's fine to form an opinion on a very narrow perspective as long as we don't confuse your opinion with facts. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * September 11 represented a deliberate and successful planned attack on the contiguous United States by foreign nationals taking place across national and state borders. It clearly passed the "national or international scope" test so you didn't need to get into the "lasting impact" criterion.  And, look, Wikipedia isn't a news source.  It doesn't need to be on top of events as they unfold.  There would have been no problem with not having a September 11 article until October 11.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have repeatedly said, your opinions about what "passes the national scope test" are perfectly acceptable here. Let's just not call them facts or give them the illusion of being facts by throwing around a few wikilinks. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Point 1 against deletion. WP:NOT#NEWS relates to news events, but the subject of this article is an organization. Borrowing words from WP:ORG here, this organization is now noteworthy because it has become the subject of international coverage by multiple reliable, independent sources. Point 2 against deletion. Even if you disagree with point 1 and want this to be a news event, then per WP:EVENT, it was nominated for deletion much too soon. Articles about breaking news events should not be nominated for several days, to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge. This article was created less than a day ago. MetaEd (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Notability seems obvious, and there's a huge difference between being in the news and failing WP:NOTNEWS. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - It is a relevant entry pertaining to current events and one that will attract interested readers.RickW7x2 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notability seems self-evident. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete temporarily per WP:NOT, and also to avoid tainting possible future jury members. Revisit this decision after the cases have made their way through the courts.  Bwrs (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Regarding "national notability": the suspects were rounded up in three different states and apparently intended to spark a nationwide revolt against the government. On another note: sadly, I can't shake the feeling that a "successful" attack of this sort is always seen as more notable than one that was foiled. Bobnorwal (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep though I have reservations. I'm not too worried about tainting any jury as long as the article keeps to the neutral point of view, but I don't know if this particular group of lunatics deserves their own Wikipedia entry. As a supporting background reference for the next few years, probably until the trial is concluded, I think the article should be retained, or perhaps converted into an article on the progress of the trial. However, in the long term I think they should just be reduced to an entry on a list of dangerous religious groups. I haven't even looked for such an article in Wikipedia (I'm here because of curiosity about today's news), but I think that article should include a tabular presentation for most of the primary attributes of these groups. For example, I think an important dimension is whether the group supports the government where they live, opposes their government, or supports some non-local government. Another interesting dimension for the table might be the degree of militarism, perhaps from 1 for peaceful and passive, 2 for peaceful resistance, 3 for talk about violence, 4 for training to commit violence, and 5 for actually committing violent acts. Shanen (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now added a reference to the fact that this group was identified as an active militia in the United States by the Southern Poverty Law Center's report for 2009. This moves us beyound the events of March 27-30th (although actually it seems to really be March 28th-29th as of yet) and into having at least some context and background.  This is the first step to moving beyound news.  I think though that fixing the article is both possible and worth-while.  Deleting it will only lead to its return as an unbalanced article until people hunker down and give it needed depth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep. This group was planning to wage war against the US government. How is that not notable?? Pristino (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep My first thought after I read the news about these people was "lets read about them on Wikipedia" - I'm sure many others will have the same thought, and they're going to be mentioned again as they all go to trial, and are likely to be mentioned in magazine articles about religious extremism in America in the coming years. 87.80.97.137 (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That was precisely my first thought when I heard about this group. It would have seemed absurd if Wikipedia had no article on the subject. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it for a while ... after trying to identify the "christian terrorists" ("Kristen grupp planerade attack i USA") mentioned on Swedish Radio, I ended up here via Southern Poverty Law Center. It is at the very least WP:NOTABLE. A future fate of the article, may be a fact puzzle piece of right extremist insurrection using christianity as a propaganda basis. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is plenty of international news coverage showing they are notable. // Liftarn (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Pristino: "This group was planning to wage war against the US government. How is that not notable??" All the more reason for experienced, neutral editors to keep their eyes on it. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per many, many others above, most especially Pristino. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an organization that will be referenced many times and has significant value on current events.Camulus (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The following is copied from the discussion page. It consists of statements that should have been placed here, since they are even in the format for this section.:

Tentative keep: since the article is here and growing slowly but surely, let's see how things unfold over the coming days. There's plenty of time to delete or merge it if it proves not to warrant a separate article.--Witan (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Tentative keep: The Hutarees are presently getting broad-ranging nation-wide news coverage. According to the notability guidelines, "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time." I think it's too soon to talk about persistence, but it certainly is not beyond the pale of possibility. Bwilreker (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Keep: This is a big deal and may be a starting point for the war on right-wing extremism. There is a trend and with the growth of militias like these, we should see more news coverage and future stories that cite this group. PartyJoe (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Keep: It is ridiculous to propose this isn't relevant encyclopedic material. These arrests are rather significant in the history of domestic terrorism in the U.S. in the early 21st Century, and somebody over with Wikiproject Terrorism should come by and clean it up a bit. This is certainly as relevant as the page on the Nigerian Christmas 2009 bomber, an FA and another failed terrorist plot. The deletion of this article would be a disservice to the Wikipedia community and would indicate a flaw in Wikipedia's deletion process.Neumannk (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Keep: This article is as important and relevant as the Heaven's Gate one would have been on this date 13 years ago. Stroller (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I hope the inclusion of the above adds to dialogue and understanding.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So given the overwhelming support for keeping it, when can somebody remove the deletion tag? Even this single incident is of historical notability, if you imagine at some point in the future researching the topic of militia groups in the early 21st century. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that there are outstanding delete votes, unless an admin wants to invoke WP:SNOW (or another form of WP:IAR) and close it early, it's likely it will remain open for the full allotted time for an afd, which is seven days from when it is opened. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep: WHY ARE YOU DELETING THIS????? IT IS MAJOR NEWS ARTICLE AND A DANGEROUS PRECIDENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF THE USA!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.55.208 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep: I don't even see why this article is up for deletion, other than that the earliest versions were hastily written and not up to basic Wikipedia standards in terms of grammar/ordering. Nonetheless, even these early versions were sourced. To me it seems obviously relevant. There is a page on Christian Terrorism, and so it would seem logical that this group would qualify as relevant to any comprehensive cataloguing of Christian Terrorist organizations. Neumannk (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment With the avalanche of keep votes that have come in, it should be noted that they all basically state the same thing (It's getting media coverage so it should be included). You're pretty much arguing in favor of why it violates WP:NOTNEWS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.202 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I disagree. While I agree that this flood of keep votes does muddy the waters a bit, it doesn't really have any effect on how much we should be applying WP:NOTNEWS. Remember, just because something is IN the news, doesn't mean it falls under the jurisdiction of WP:NOTNEWS, there are other factors to take into consideration. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:16, 30 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.