Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oklahoma Unorganized Militia


 * 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. JForget 00:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma Unorganized Militia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

After looking, I could not find any reliable sourcing speaking of the "Oakland Unorganized Militia, therefore I question whether this article should be deleted because it is not notable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you typed "Oakland" instead of "Oklahoma" when you were searching. :) Mandsford (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There is absolutely no excuse for no sourcing for this, but it is referred to in state law (Oklahoma Statutes section 44-41) which was raised as a defense in a 2001 case. On the other hand, the statement that this is also called the "Oklahoma militia" is an insult to the Oklahoma National Guard.  Where mentioned at all, this does not refer to a state-approved body .  Unfortunately, this Wikipedia article gets quoted and requoted.  Mandsford (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, while checking for sources, I too ran across that US v Hanley court ruling. In it John Hanley argues that because he belongs to the "Oklahoma Unorganized Militia" he should be acquitted of the crime of owning an unregistered machine gun, though the appeals court rejected his reasoning as frivolous.  Still, this there is essentially no other mention of the topic of this article in reliable sourcing that I could find.  This falls far short of the policy threshold which is: significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This situation necessitates three correctly sourced sentences in Oklahoma Department of the Military about the state law and probably the court case you refer to. It might require a one sentence mention in the Govt of Oklahoma or Oklahoma article itself. This is a paper force only and as such, does not require an independent article. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as completely unsourced and for statements whose accuracy is questionable. The equally unsourced article Oklahoma Department of the Military is just as suspect, in my opinion.  For some reason, I don't turn that up at all in anything put on the Internet by the State of Oklahoma.  There's an Adjutant General who commands the state national guard.  Articles like this belong on absoluteastronomy.com and on extremist websites.  Mandsford (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * After checking for sources for Oklahoma Department of the Military I agree that that article too is not notable, and started an AfD for it too. Articles for deletion/Oklahoma Department of the Military  SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: per Buckshot06. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 4 April 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.