This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rf68705 (talk | contribs) at 05:09, 28 November 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:09, 28 November 2012 by Rf68705 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
RE: National Association for Gun Rights
Hi. Are you sure about the closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/National Association for Gun Rights as keep? Your RfA in April 2012 raised concerns about your stated inclusionist perspective
. My {{Db-g11}} tag (prompted by an admin and supported by the nominator) 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 rough consensus. Thanks very much. -- Trevj (talk) 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 National Association for Gun Rights (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 Dudley Brown, 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. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 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. Xymmax So let it be done 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 relisted the AfD. Faustus37 (talk) 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. -- Trevj (talk) 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. Rf68705 (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)