Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition for Religious Freedom

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 of the debate was no consensus. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 12:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Religious Freedom

One sentence article of unnotable and no longer existing front group. A google search for "Coalition for Religious Freedom" "robert grant" bring 330 hits (includes Wikipedia articles). This organization should not be confused with "International Coalition for Religious Freedom," which brings up thousands of hits. Arbustoo 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Grant is an influential figure in American politics. Bad ideas 08:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grant is, but this group of 330 google hits isn't. Merge any important information (the whole article is ONE sentence), delete article. Arbustoo 20:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notable organization. Keep and expand. --Jason Gastrich 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who let the trolls out? --Chuck Hastings 06:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is suspected that User:Chuck Hastings is a sock puppet of User:Jason Gastrich. See talk pages. Arbustoo 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With support like that... FeloniousMonk 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. - WarriorScribe 02:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable leaders in a notable org. --Chuck Hastings 06:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is suspected that User:Chuck Hastings is a sock puppet of User:Jason Gastrich. See talk pages. Jason has a long documented history of trying to sway AfDs. Arbustoo 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notable people, non-notable group. After deleting this, this info ought to be merged into lehaye and grant pages. -- Pierremenard 23:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn group. --Ter e nc e Ong 07:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oh, and your allegations only need to be said once, Arbustoo. ---J.Smith 07:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Coalition for Religious Freedom (as soon as the article actually gets written) (I don't know when I'll have time.) Grandmasterka 08:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as a nn organization --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Two non-redlinked founders and defense of a controversial outfit seems keepable to me. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep somewhat notable. Bobby1011 15:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to...? Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I removed the tag not NPOV because I don't see how the 2 sentences which currently comprise this stub are not NPOV. I also removed the tag Clean up because it is already listed as a stub. Bobby1011 15:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Grant may be notable, but his defunct front organization from the 80's is not.--Isotope23 17:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Organization appears at least minimally notable, and google searches are not terribly effective in identifying newsworthy events of the 1980s. Monicasdude 18:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be notable? In what way? Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please it is a notable organization agree with adrian lamo Yuckfoo 19:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why. Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Isotope23. Stifle 23:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Needs to be expanded, not merged. There's more information that can be added. -AKMask 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article gives no evidence of verifiability. --W.marsh 15:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.