Deletion of The Jewish Internet Defense Force

Comment: The JIDF as content conforms to , the issue of whether it lasts as a hot topic is something that will have to be judged in the future. On , actually the JIDF have been on the radio on other topics, so it is not really one event, but this is certainly the biggest event. NB: I'm not entirely uninvolved given that I have commented in the press on them and have a publication coming out soon (so you may want to disregard this vote). (It does mean there will be another source though if anyone want sto look out for it and add it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:ONEVENT)

Comment: while I have concerns about their long-term notability, looking for references reveals that they easily pass , having been the subject of news coverage from various independent media organisations. A year or two from now, this group may or may not have faded into irrelevance; but for now at least, I don't think their notability is in doubt
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: They do seem a bit y, but then that applies to people not groups. I can find news items on the Facebook thing in papers from six countries http://news.google.co.uk/news?q=%22Jewish%20Internet%20Defense%20Force%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn, including the Telegraph and Jerusalem Post, which I think qualifies for notability. Irritatingly the latter seems to be a broken URL, but the snippet on Google News search confirms the gist of what the Telegraph article says. The article could certainly do with improvement: several of the claims there seem to be unsourced, such as the 'over 100 groups' claim which is sourced only to a http://www.thejidf.org/2008/08/current-response-to-wikipedia.html complaint about this article on the group's website
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEVENT)

Comment: conforms to , - well sourced etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The sources cited in this article border on being |"a short burst of news reports about a single event".  It's not clear to me whether this is truly a notable organization or if this was basically a news item.  So, I suggest we err on the side of keeping the article - we can always revisit if it becomes clear down the road that this was just a news item
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOBJ)

Comment: this organisation and its activities have been noted by the media, and with the citations included it seems to conform to  and , but should be rewritten to improve its style
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:ORG)