Deletion of PUMA Pac

Comment: Indeed, |maintaining a neutral point of view is one of the most important principles of Wikipedia. If you'll read the nominator's comment and my own above, you'll notice that our main gripe with the article is its lack of |notability as it pertains to |organizations, as established by |reliable sources. If you can establish such notability, I encourage you to |be bold(!) and fix the article. I'd gladly change my above "weak delete" into a "keep" if such sources can be produced and introduced into the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:N||WP:ORG||WP:RS||WP:BOLD)

Comment: per , which remains a generous interpretation given the shades of . At best, this warrants a footnote under Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, or perhaps one of the hundreds of other Hillary Rodham Clinton articles already littered around Wikipedia. It certainly, however, has absolutely no potential for long term |notability on its own
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:POVFORK||WP:N)

Comment: While there seem to be a few notable media references to them (http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/06/hillary-clinton-supporters-voting-for.html 1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/07/hillaryclinton.barackobama 2 http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23840402-5012572,00.html 3 http://www.washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=19082 4) it seems extremely bursty and limited, and I do not believe there is enough out there to make an encyclopedic article. The article as it is looks almost like it would violate #WEBHOST
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)