Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steadfast

Article Steadfast listed on WP:VFD Apr 26 to May 3 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Two Google hits. RickK 00:28, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll sign up! Er.. delete -- Graham :) | Talk 00:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look real, much less notable. -- Cyrius|&#9998 02:51, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is real.... I'm puzzled by the comment "I'll sign up! Er.. delete". Does this mean that if you oppose the policies of a political group that they should be excluded from Wikipaedia? I included them, because, though small, they are the only pressure group of their kind in England. Others such as the "Royal Society of St George" try to remain as uncontroversial as possible. They are "mainstream" whereas the Steadfast group is the radical alternative. If there existed a larger version of the same type there would be a case for deletion. Until that day, Steadfast should be listed. User:dissidentcongress.
 * The "I'll sign up" part is because I can see that they have a point in some respects and it is the sort of thing that I personally would sign up for. The vote to delete is because they appear unverifiable by any immediately available source, which is grounds for deletion.  Provide me some reliable and neutral sources that say that this is a legitimate article, and I may reconsider my vote.  Your comment: Does this mean that if you oppose the policies of a political group that they should be excluded from Wikipaedia?: please don't jump to conclusions based on what little you know about me.  thank you. -- Graham  :) | Talk 01:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Graham. Irony isn't my strong point. [User:Dissidentcongress]

End discussion