| Revision as of 04:21, 1 December 2012 editEdwardsBot (talk | contribs)354,693 edits →Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries Seattle: new section← Previous edit |
Revision as of 09:13, 2 December 2012 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,385,862 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Faustus37/Archives2012/November. (BOT)Next edit → |
| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== RE: National Association for Gun Rights == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi. Are you sure about the closure of ] as ''keep''? ] in April 2012 raised concerns about your stated {{Tq|inclusionist perspective}}. My {{tl|Db-g11}} tag (prompted by ] and supported by ]) was present for barely 20 minutes. It would be appreciated if you could please elaborate further on your weighing up of the arguments in order to determine ]. Thanks very much. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 13:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
: I am concerned about the closure. "Cited in adequate third-party sources" does not establish notability; significant coverage is required. As I noted in the discussion, there's no significant coverage of ] (NAGR) in the cited sources. Coverage was mostly incidental; a couple of sources didn't even mention NAGR. I found no significant coverage in my own search. What I did find was disturbing: Multiple accusations in gun rights forums that NAGR is a "scam" and ], the organization's Executive Vice President, using his article in Misplaced Pages as evidence the organization isn't a scam. Links were included in the discussion. I, too, would like to know how you determined that the consensus was to keep the article. I'll watch for a reply here. ] (]·]) ] 22:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*Not to pile on, but I too have questions about the removal of the speedy and NAC. I noticed the Afd when I was doing some gnoming, and planned to close it when I had time to read it. Please do respond when you have a moment. ] ] ] 14:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::*I stand by my comments that there is adequate third-party citation in the article. However, given there's obviously a lack of consensus, I ]. ] (]) 22:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks - at least that will save the need for a long drawn-out discussion elsewhere. Apologies if the eventual outcome of the AfD is the same as your close. Cheers. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 23:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::*Thanks - I appreciate your attentiveness to this article and the opportunity to clarify some of the accusations being made that continue to be made on this. As a supporter of the article, I too wanted to call attention to the opponents using unreferenced hearsay in web forums as evidence, while ignoring other references. I think you made the correct initial call, but this should help clarify it. ] (]) 05:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Howard Dean == |
|
== Howard Dean == |
