Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oath Keepers


 * 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. WP:SNOWCLOSE (non-admin closure) &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 01:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Oath Keepers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

1) This organization is not notable, 2) Liberal Blogs are not reliable sources. 3) SPLC is not a reliable source, they call all conservative organizations hate groups. This article fails to meet even the most basic of Wikipedia's standards.  It is so biased, poorly written and poorly sourced, that it is not salvageable and should be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC2D:A090:3547:9104:7718:66D3 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. ansh 666 18:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: The Washington Post is a reliable source. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/11/who-are-the-oath-keepers-and-why-has-the-armed-group-returned-to-ferguson/ . I also note that the SPLC does not call this group a hate group and the word hate is not in the article as it now stands.  SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   19:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Plenty of RS coverage, including the sources already in the article (most of which do not appear to be "liberal blogs") and the following additional sources:    Everymorning (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Several years of RS reports. There is biased content, which should be cleaned up, but that is not relevant here. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This article needs a LOT of help in the neutrality department but as Rwxrwxrwx said, that's irrelevant. The organization is clearly notable with even the most hasty Google search. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   20:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --  Non-Dropframe   talk   20:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, 2a/3. While it's not a flawless article, there's really no question about the existence of enduring coverage in reliable sources. With the subject of this article also being associated with current news events, it is difficult to assume good faith regarding this nomination. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep for the same reasons as Squeamish Ossifrage. BSVulturis (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep as per previous comments re: keep Mr Pyles (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Speedy keep per previous comments. If you don't like how the group is being portrayed, work on the article.  5minutes (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Speedy keep per previous comments. This is all over the news right now. This has nothing to do with whether the article discusses good people or bad people. If you don't like the article, I suggest you work to fix it. Having a Wikipedia article on an item of general public interest is in everybody's interest - except the deletionists. --Achim Hering (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The sources provide abundant evidence of sufficient notability. All other issues can be corrected by editing. Robofish (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per previous comments.Autarch (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2015 (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.