Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Property and Freedom Society

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The two latter "keep" contributions have been disregarded as mere votes. Sandstein 09:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Property and Freedom Society

Property and Freedom Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability has been questioned, Procedural nomination on my part

• No opinion I mistakenly thought it a copyvio from the site, but,, seeing N had been questioned, I brought it here. Copyvio or not, the photos are not significant content and the article will be stronger--and look stronger--without them. DGG 22:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is about a group which is barely referenced or cited, even though some of the individuals in the group are noteworthy on their own. The group just doesn't seem notable and has VERY few references to it in media or journals or papers etc. Ikilled007 23:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fewer than 600 Google hits; more tellingly, fewer than 5000 visits registered on the website's counter. Not a major force in economic thinking. BTLizard 13:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Looking at the edit history of the article, enough people seem to be willing to work on the article; that in itself tells something about its notability. Intangible2.0 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The group is notable enough to have warranted multiple, independent sources. A recent AP article, of which two versions were published (here and here), cited the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League as finding this group notable enough to comment on (critically). DickClarkMises 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No Opinion As the original contributor of the article, I'm rethinking the group's notability, if for no other reason than the fact that the group seems no more notable than its least notable members. I'm now thinking that the sources above are really more about Hoppe than PFS, at least with regards to the controversy that they cover. DickClarkMises 15:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep --Remi 20:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Baronnet 17:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.