Deletion of Hutaree

Comment: it for a while ... after trying to identify the ''"christian terrorists"'' ("Kristen grupp planerade attack i USA") mentioned on http://sverigesradio.se/ekot/artikel.asp?artikel=3593279 Swedish Radio, I ended up here via http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/03/29/nine-members-of-the-hutaree-militia/ Southern Poverty Law Center. It is at the very least . A future fate of the article, may be a fact puzzle piece of right extremist insurrection using christianity as a propaganda basis
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: This organization is notable as an armed militant organization. Portal:Current events lays out their most recent plan: To kill a police officer and attack his funeral. They might attempt something like this again in the future, or they might fail, but, as stipulated by the P:CE entry, they are clearly trying to wage war against all levels of the United States. If an article about a group that sells pipe bombs to the public, plans to kill law enforcement officials, and was raided by the FBI is not article-worthy, then I don't know what is. The current content of the article may need to be revised to meet |NOTNEWS policies, however. On top of that, however, http://www.youtube.com/user/hutaree I have seen them training. They are heavily armed militants, not just religious fanatics
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per  Special:Contributions/63.215.29.202|63.215.29.202
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The purpose of , at least as I interpret it, is to keep us from the minutae of everyday life, and claiming its wiki-worthy, not to allow deletion of something merely because its in the news. The question remains then, is it just a story thats in the news, and thus not encyclopedic, or is it something thats encyclopedic, and just happens to be in the news? I personally feel it is the latter, as I'm reminded of the Branch Davidians, in some respects, or of the incident at Ruby Ridge. That said, I'm willing to concede that the immediacy of the story might make it seem more encyclopedic than it actually is. So if the article is kept now, a re-visit in several months might be worthwhile
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: and don't merge.  Many will look to wikipedia for a brief, balanced account for who or what this group is/was.  Probably the article will change a thousand times in the next weeks and months, but that is not a reason to delete.   #NEWS is relevant to how the article is to be written, not whether there should one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per #NEWS,  and  with no prejudice against recreation.  No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources prior to yesterday (March 28), and no particular reason to think it will receive a large amount in the future.  Also no evidence of having lasting effects or geographical scope within the meaning of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:SBST||WP:EVENT||WP:EVENT)

Comment: per #NEWS. A brief description may be merited in some list-type article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Notability seems obvious, and there's a huge difference between being in the news and failing . &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: One of the weakest AfDs I've ever seen. The article has adequate sourcing, it is about a notable subject, and (contrary to what the nominator wrote) clearly does not fail #NEWS. Is there an ulterior motive in this nomination? Special:Contributions/71.77.21.198|71.77.21.198
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)