I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the Five pillars of Wikipedia and simplified ruleset. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.
If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
The article as written came across as a political polemic full of loaded terms - a classical soapbox. The group appeared to fail the notability test since there are very few external references to it and that the purpose of including it in Wikipedia is to raise its profile. It seemed to me that it failed the first of the "Five Pillars of Wikipedia
If you disagree, you can appeal on Articles for deletion. If you look at the discussion there, you will see that the consensus view was that it lacked merit. But wikipedia assumes wikipedia:good faith and an appeal may be successful if you can argue that appearances are deceptive. Or you could put the material as a section in Euroscepticism. --Red King22:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
