Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Justice Foundation


 * 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. because the policy based arguments concern poor sourcing and the article lacks reliable sourcing to establish notability. Assumptions of notability or that sources must exist cannot overcome the absence of said sources Spartaz Humbug! 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

United States Justice Foundation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Recreation of previously deleted content, non-notable fringe "conservative" organization in the United States. Passing mentions in Google Books and in two currently unavailable articles do not satisfy the notability criteria for organizations.  Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as spam and re-creation of previously deleted material. The references or either primary sources or unreliable, none of which show notability. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- —Cyber cobra  (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A reference does not have to be online to be valid. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the sources cited provide the coverage significant enough to demonstrate the notability of the organization. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability or significance of an organization are relative concepts. The organization does exist and appears to have made history in California.  The language defining this organization is not defamatory, debasing or biased.  Although the organization is dealing with controversial and sensational political topics, it does not appear to violate any laws and is available for comment.  Ccrider77 August 16, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccrider77 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What "history" has this group made, other than filing a few amicus curiae briefs? These are a bunch of birthers and other assorted nuts who really are otherwise non-notable other than for their extreme positions. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 04:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I re-created this after seeing it as a red link in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and then finding a number of online references. 216 news results, (23 from the LA Times - unfortunately most of those are pay-to-view), 14 Gscholar results , 70 Gbook results , 36 results in .edu domains , 360 web results apart from its own site . They've made frequent amicus curiae filings at the US Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court. . Amicus presentations to these courts are not frivolous . In my opinion all S.C. amici filers deserve WP articles, because if the Supremes will hear them, then I - as a citizen - deserve to know who they are. More narrowly and WP-rule-oriented, I read the organization notability guidelines as saying that multiplicity can compensate for lack of depth. And there might be deeper coverage in the pay-to-view articles, in the Gscholar articles, or in the non-viewable books. My impression is that when considering deletion, the possibility of expansion and further referencing carries more weight than the current state of the article -  if we can find dozens of viewable, online, reliable sources on a topic, we conclude there are more that aren't so easily found. Novickas (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2009 (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.