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 redirect to Oath Keepers. I would not be opposed to protection of the redirect if it is believed warranted. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect has now been semi-protected for 1 year by Dlohcierekim (at 11:53, 8 March 2018‎ ) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Stewart Rhodes[edit]

Elmer Stewart Rhodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge with oath keepers. Not enough to warrant his own article. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep quite a lot of coverage of this militia founder and leader. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - no substantial coverage presented that is independent of Oath Keepers. VQuakr (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page. Am fine with merging it with Oath Keepers.

• Delete Article relies too much on primary sources and sources published by Rhodes. Then there is the SPLC, which is basically a fund-raising racket, that is in no way a reliable source for anything, both trying to support its incoherent hate group list by mischaracterizing many who are put there and at the same time listing at least one individual as a hate group, not even counting some of the organizations it identifies as "groups" that do not clearly have more than one actual member. Such high presure salesman tactics should not be used in created a neutral point of view encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Oath Keepers, as typically done with leaders/founders of minor groups. Not independently notable and a separate article is not required. Possibly protect the redirect, to prevent restoration. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and/or redirect. Half the footnotes here are primary sources or blogs, which cannot support notability, and he's not strongly enough the subject of the other four more reliable sources to deem him as passing WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.