Deletion of Americans for Peace and Tolerance

Comment: per Nableezy and others above. Sorry, saying "It's notable" does not make it so. As already laid out above, the sources address the individuals, and compiling those together to make this article is . The organization itself is non-notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Superficially, this is a well sourced article, but if you actually ''read'' the sources provided, '''not a single one''' is about this organization, and only half of them even mention it by name; as such, it fails  and .  That being said, I see nothing wrong with reviewing another editor's work and AfDing articles that fail under relevant policies; I've done so myself.  Rather than sling mud, Epeefleche's energies are better served finding valid sources which discuss the ''subject'' in significant detail; so far, the article doesn't even discuss Jacobs in such detail, as mere quotes don't qualify as being ''about'' the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: as this article fails . The coverage assoicated with this organisation is not balanced in anyway, and looks like self-promotion to me
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: I lean towards delete since there isn't enough independent coverage to make more than a stub saying: "Americans for Peace and Tolerance is a group devoted to exposing Islamic extremism. People involved say: stuff". Press releases would add a little more body but that doesn't dictate notability. There are plenty of sources not related to Jacobshttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Americans+for+Peace+and+Tolerance%22&scoring=a&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2009/01&as_hdate=2009/12&lnav=hist9 but they are all equal about: "So and so w/ group says blah blah blah". Most of it is from Boston (boooo...) media, but there is also international coverage meaning that  is not far off. It could meet the loosest of definitions for both GNG and ORG. Not sure if it is good enough coverage yet. I suspect it will be but we don't keep articles based on that. The group should certainly be mentioned at Dennis Hale and Charles Jacobs (political activist)|Charles Jacobs. It might be good to have a separate article since it will be duplicate info but that might need to wait until the organization gets a little more coverage. Igonoring politics, an m:inclusionist|inclusionist would certainly say yes while a m:Deletionism|opposite would say no way. I would definetley say keep if I missed a couple paragraph write up in the sources or if one shows up
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: organisation is clearly notable: Jacobs and others are quoted in the press as representatives of APT, not merely as individuals who happen to belong to that organisation. As far as I can see, the article seems a fair representation of coverage in |reliable sources: if APT's activities or statements include completely uncontroversial stuff that doesn't get reported because it's uncontroversial (which might or might not be the case - I don't know) there's not much we can do about that other than briefly quoting the organisation's stated aims and including a link to its website, which has been done. This meets notability and verifiability standards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Wow, if there were ever a case where I implore a closing admin to rule for policy over nose-counting, this is one.  Most of the Keep proponents claim this group is "notable."  Notability hinges on , which states
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)