Deletion of J.A.I.L. 4 Judges

Comment: the group has gotten enough coverage elsewhere that it does have a valid place in wikipedialand. However, this article is a mess. I've cleaned up some of the formatting, but it is heavily underreferenced, reads like a personal essay in many points, has rather blatant POV slants being added to it even now (I just saw a new edit that seems to make it a goal to prosecute judges for mere controversy in their rulings), and there's been some major  involved; the webmaster of the group has edited repeatedly, the page was founded by someone who was later bounced for making death threats against a user, and appears to have been material taken from the group's website. It really needs some editor with time and willingness to strip it down severely, and leave an objective and direct short piece. This is not an organization that has had a substantial effect; it's a history of failure with no lasting impact, and thus doesn't need much depth
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: The article is basically a long essay in favor of the ideas of the group, which seems to have little notability in itself. The article may qualify as a , "a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:coatrack)