Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Identity Nation


 * 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 speedy delete - non-notable organisation pushing an absurd idea. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The Identity Nation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Zero coverage in independent news sources. Possible vanity project / astroturfing of just one guy and his buddies; user posted screengrabs and links to the article on Facebook just minutes after creation. Blackguard 00:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 *  Comment . A search for RS coverage gets some passing mentions in the local press. This organization is on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of Active Christian Identity Groups. I'm not finding anything to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. After further searching, all RS coverage appears to come from the SPLC's listing of this group. Nothing of any depth found. Citations in the article don't support the content. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. This is probably speedyable given that there's zero coverage in reliable sources and the ones in the article that could be seen as reliable don't actually discuss the group at all. Also, the writing at times seems like it was written by a member of the group and it reads a little in favor of it, so it could be seen as a little promotional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:25, 29 May 2014 (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.