Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Association for Gun Rights

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 no consensus. I hate to come to that conclusion after such a long and involved discussion, but here I see no alternative. Editors have addressed the central question at an AfD ("Is sufficient reliable source material available to write a comprehensive article on this subject?"), and have come to different conclusions about the answer, several of whom on both sides gave positions which made clear they carefully examined the source material available and didn't just do a drive-by or reference list count. Many thanks to those editors who did careful examinations of the sources available, and refrained from bringing in irrelevancies such as Google hit count, membership size, number of employees, and the like. An additional confounding factor in the determination of a clear consensus is that several editors favored deletion based upon the article being a blatant ad, and it is not clear whether they consider that concern to have been resolved by subsequent editing or not.

I suspect we might be re-examining this issue a few months down the road. Hopefully, with the article in better shape at that point, we can get a better idea of whether this is a suitable topic for an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Association for Gun Rights (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)

Relisting, lack of consensus Faustus37 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Well past the allotted discussion period. Cited in adequate third-party sources. (non-admin closure) Faustus37 (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no significant reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Given references are primary sources or don't mention the association. Claims are not cited. Would be happy to keep if these are met. heather walls (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After researching for a bit, the majority of content I found online was from unreliable sources (blogs, special interest groups), primary sources, or mere mentions that share little to nothing about the organization. Appears to fail general notability guidelines for me. SarahStierch (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as passing mentions and blog coverage is not the in depth coverage in reliable independent sources as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article seems to be just barely informative and referenced enough to survive. The group is to the point of being notable. Registered, active, filing regularly income and expenditures, getting some mentions and light coverage. The article should be de-politicized and de-advertorialized quite a bit by an outsider.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the Gun Owners of America page faces the same kind of issues, and the NRA's page also references it's self multiple times, yet there isn't a deletion discussion going on over there. The suggestion that there are no significant reliable secondary sources in the NAGR article is highly subjective. Several credible news media outlets are referenced. NAGR's notability as an established PAC is further established on Open Secrets, and it looks like they have a growing influence by those numbers. A quick Google news search reveals more sources that seem to implicate it's 501c4 counterpart. Perhaps these should be added to the article. I say we give this article time, and let the community touch it up with more references instead of jumping to deletion conclusions -- especially when the subject is politically controversial. To do so may suggest a bias against the organization or it's positions instead of a fair evaluation of it's worthiness for Wikipedia. --Rf68705 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article and Request Close of Discussion Ok, I’ve spiffed up the article. This page now has more citations than most other gun groups. These references include non-original source references and news references including the Wall Street Journal, Denver Post, the filings of the organization in Virginia, legislative references and testimony, financial information and several neutral political news services, and links to articles from other gun groups they’ve worked with.

Membership claim is now cited. (Even the NRA's membership claim was a self-reference and that link is currently broken, and GOA's references their own press release. NAGR's reference is a court document, sworn under oath). Included references to the groups 2012 activities and expenditures (Open Secrets and the FEC), which is more information than other groups in the Gun interest groups in the U.S. category have.

The group’s expenditures are more than a drop in the bucket, and far exceed other groups with uncontested pages. In fact, the referenced sources show that the group's notability through their expenditures is growing quite significantly. Furthermore, their lawsuits are quite relevant to current debates on post office concealed carry laws, and campaign finance laws. Let the readers decide that, if necessary add to it.

Gun rights groups tend to have a lot of blog and forum entries that show up on a quick Google search. I’d encourage folks to dig deeper than page one before assuming the relevance isn’t notable.

Keep in mind, per the criteria of notability for organizations “Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.” The sources provided, and those recently added, are sufficient to establish the required initial notability.

Additionally, unregistered IP addresses have been making edits and accusations about this page without substantiating them and one has admitted a personal bias against this group’s VP. The Wikipedia community has a responsibility not to arbitrarily delete articles because someone simply does not like the group or one of its leaders. That responsibility is even more important for articles about political organizations that have enemies with motive to vandalize, discredit or delete it.

Those who have concerns about the facts of the article should take them out through appropriate critiques and edits of the content, instead of slinging personal attacks on the talk page. The fact is, this group isn’t going anywhere, and people who have/will received letters and emails from them are going to want to know more info about the group and will be looking for an unbiased reference. So here’s the chance for the Wiki community to provide it. Let’s get to work.

In the interest of full disclosure, yes, I have connections to the group, and welcome NPOV critiques and edits. But, deleting this page would be a very biased and inconsistent move, and would necessitate the deletion of several other organizations pages for the same reasons. Therefore I request this discussion be promptly closed and the article NOT deleted. --Rf68705 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep - I'm just gonna point out that a straight Google search for the exact name of the organization returns 2.6 million hits and offer my opinion that this is the sort of material that a comprehensive encyclopedia should include. If there are problems with the neutrality or tone of the piece, fix it. If there are problems with sourcing, fix them or tag for more sources. Don't let IDONTLIKEIT feelings get in the way of a comprehensive encyclopedia... And no, I'm not a gun owner, and yes, I think an organization which lobbies for enhanced firearms privileges characterizing itself as a "civil rights" group is asinine. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Wikipedia stance on google search arguments is, "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." There is not a single reliable source on the first five google search pages I see, and it is the responsibility of the people who want to keep the article to produce those sources. I am very happy for well written articles on all subjects, my objections are to articles that don't prove notability, are not properly cited and are written almost entirely by COI single-purpose (or nearly so) accounts. heather walls (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My counter argument is that if there is a big enough iceberg showing on the Google radar, one can be damned sure that there are enough reliable sources out there to make a snowcone that will pass GNG muster. I'm a believer in following WP:BEFORE, which, if nothing else, means that nominators should run a quick check on Google and if an organization returns, let's say 2.6 million hits, assume that it is going to pass GNG and take other action to fix what ails a piece. This never should have been brought to AfD. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as promotional The WSJ article is enough to establish notability , but the article is hopelessly promotional beyond the scope of normal rewriting The entire tone is promotional. The entire body of the article is composed of quotes from supporters of the association. There is not one word of negative comment, besides that implied by 1 of the 4 political candidates they supported having lost an election. (A 2nd of them lost the general election also, but the article says only that he won the primary). There is an irrelevant paragraph about the organization's president supporting Ron Paul at the Republican convention. I can see no way to deal with it except starting over, But I don't want to do this as an admin by myself, unless there is some agreement. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (I know this might be quibbling, but the WSJ article I see is 90% about the NRA with a couple of small paragraphs from NAGR. Pardon me if there is another.)

Support speedy. heather walls (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is a work in progress, and this article illustrates that. The fact that a particular article, in its current form, needs a lot of work is not a valid rationale for speedy deletion, and neither is "questionable material that is not vandalism" (See Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7_scope). DickClarkMises (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject is potentially valid: the article is not. The fact of the matter is there would be more worth in salting the earth and starting over than in attempting to rewrite the current version - this is the most efficient way. Ironholds (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep

Respectfully, statements above regarding notability are generally the same as they were when the AfD thread was first initiated and opponents have failed to address points I have made, or the changes made to the article that addressed the initial concerns regarding notability. Only one source has been cited in effort to discredit the subject’s notability resulting in one cherry-picked reference out of over thirty being skewed to fit one persons narrative.

As far as I am concerned this is a case of a few people with a vendetta against the subject trolling the article, by applying their own subjective standards here, but not other similar, yet generally uncontested articles written in a similar fashion. Given the sensitivity of the topic, and the potential for vandalism that exists by real life political opponents of the articles subject (including other "pro-gun" groups, as well as "anti-gun"), deletion should heavily scrutinized.

As I explained I my previous post regarding Google searches, its important dig deeper than page one on a Google search before assuming the relevance isn’t notable. Just because the few people here did not find a bunch of noteworthy sources at the click of a mouse does not mean they are not there.

Last week I edited the article to in accordance, and as encouraged by, the guide to deletion. In doing so, I provided the article with many credible references not seen on a Google search that contribute to notability that were not present when the article was first nominated.

As outlined by Wikipedia standards of Notability for organizations, several items establish PRIMARY criteria for notability as follows:

Items that contribute to the Depth of coverage, Audience, and Independent Source criteria include:

• Reference # 2: Wall Street Journal o Independent Source o Depth (being recognized for differences between themselves and other groups) o Audience (nationwide penetration)

• Reference # 11: USA Today o Independent Source o Depth (Uses the organization as a source/interview for their story on a legislative issue of national prominence) o Audience (nationwide penetration)

• Reference # 12 & 17: Politico o Independent Source o Depth (Director’s role at the Republican national convention / organizations role in the Iowa Straw Poll) o Audience (nationwide penetration, political audience, Iowa market)

• Reference #21: Courthouse news o Independent Source o Depth (Organizations part in a lawsuit on campaign finance, pertinent state, and federal issue) o Audience (nationwide penetration, followers of court and legal news)

• Reference #23: Billings Gazette o Independent Source o Depth (Organizations part in a lawsuit on campaign finance, pertinent state, and federal issue) o Audience(Montana market)

• Reference #24: United Press International o Independent Source o Depth (Organization’s involvement in a lawsuit to overturn gun bans in post offices) o Audience(International, likely US media markets to pick up the story)

• Reference #26: Denver Channel – ABC 7 News o Independent Source o Depth (Organizations involvement on the campus carry issue) o Audience(Colorado market)

• Reference #27: Nationalreview o Independent Source (self-admitted conservative bias, but no affiliation with group) o Depth (Organization endorses congressional candidate) o Audience(Conservative national audience)

• Reference #19 - Colorado Legislature o Independent Source (Not applicable, though made available by the CO Legislature) o Depth (Organizations materials referenced by legislative committee) o Audience (Colorado market / Colorado legislature)

• References #13, 14, 15, 19 o Independent Source (Local groups with similar goals, cite the organizations involvement in matters important to their constituencies) o Depth (Organization has made notable relations with other groups, testified before multiple legislative committees.) o Audience (New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Utah gun enthusiasts)

• References #29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 o Independent Source (Official government or credible reporting service) o Depth (Organization has raised and has spent significant sums of money) o Audience (Made available to anyone)

And again, “once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.”

While Google as accurately been criticized as not being a source to establish notability, Google should also not be the sole criteria for disproving notability. In fact, WP:BIO, specifically states, “Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics.” I submit that applying this standard to organizations is a natural extension of a well made point. Points made above referencing Google searches to disprove notability should not be well taken.

The changes made to the article, and the articles in its current form are very comparable, and in many cases MORE well referenced than articles about similar groups.

The fact that discussion of those changes and points has been ignored could be construed as prima-facie evidence that a bias against the articles subject the true motivation behind the efforts of some to delete this article.

If there is dispute regarding the article notability, please comment on the specifics, as I just have, instead of general impressions, subjective presumptions, and incomplete or cherry-picked arguments.

This articles subject has demonstrated and established sufficient basic notability, and deserves more respect than to be tied up in endless bureaucratic Wiki-litigation by a few people. If you don't like it, fix it. But keep the article, quit harassing it, and do not re-nominate it for deletion.--Rf68705 (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While your comments are useful, there's only one !VOTE each in straw polls here, so I've struck out your multiple !votes. -- Trevj (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is promotional. Rf68705 is a single purpose account whose only activity has been in this discussion and the article. I checked the references cited by Rf68705. As he requested, comments are specific.

Ref 12 - Only 3 sentences at the bottom of the Wall Street Journal article are devoted to the National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR). The article is not about NAGR; NAGR is only mentioned as one of many "splinter groups". Trivial mention of NAGR in this article does not establish notability.

Ref 211 - Four sentences are devoted to NAGR. The article is about opposition to high-capacity magazines, not NAGR. A statement that NAGR disagrees with gun control advocates is not substantial coverage to establish notability of NAGR.

Ref 12 - NAGR is not mentioned in the article. That the director of NAGR was a Republican delegate does not help establish notability of NAGR.

Ref 17 - An NAGR email was reproduced along with a comment in a reporter's column making it a primary source. It is not an article about NAGR.

Ref 21 - The article is about a lawsuit filed by NAGR, not about NAGR. References 1 and 4 are the filing of the same lawsuit. Filing a lawsuit does not help establish notability. Notability requires substantial coverage of NAGR.

Ref 23 - This article reports that NAGR lost its lawsuit (references 1,4 and 21). There is no substantial coverage of NAGR but it does note that NAGR wanted to spend $20,000 to support a Republican candidate.

Ref 24 - NAGR is mentioned once in the middle of the article. There is no coverage of NAGR at all. A mention of supporting a lawsuit does not establish notability.

Ref 26 - NAGR is not mentioned in the source. Saying NAGR threatened to sue is either original research or synthesis not suppored by this source. In no way does this source help establish notability.

Ref 27 (now 28) - The article is about the NRA supporting a Democrat. NAGR is only mentioned once at the end of the article as endorsing a different candidate. A trivial mention does not help establish notability.

Ref's 13, 14, 15 and 19 - That NAGR is mentioned on the web sites of state groups with similar goals does not help establish notability.

Ref's 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 only document contributions my NAGR's PAC as required by law and in no way establish notability of the organization.

When I first saw this AfD, I leaned toward a Weak Support !vote based on the number of reliable sources. After I checked them, I reversed to Delete because the sources did not support notability. To reassure myself, I did an independent search. See here and here and here, among many others. Then I found the Executive Director of NAGR used Wikipedia to help establish his importance here.

Based on all of the above, an article on NAGR does not belong in the encyclopedia at this time. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Prompted by DGG's comment, I've tagged this {{Db-g11}}, per WP:NOTPROMOTION. . -- Trevj (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Faustus37 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Relisting Comment: My vote is still a Keep for this one given the sourcing, however I'm relisting anyway due to an obvious lack of consensus (see my Talk page). Faustus37 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I am no fan, but this is an established and federally registered political action committee. This is a borderline snow keep, isn't it? It's leaders have done countless interviews. I do not understand this nomination. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Agree with immediate previous poster. The poster who refuted my reference list did so with subjective biases against most of them essentially claiming because the group was not the majority subject of the articles that notability does not exist. Quite the contrary, when several independent sources across the country pick up on a single groups activities, it demonstrates a brad range of saturation and notability. Additionally, Reference #11 the USA Today was completely ignored in the rebuttal. Finally, posters so-called "research" is entirely based off of discussion form hearsay -- which is the simple result of clicking on on the less credible first page results of a google search. Hardly content notable enough to be considered as evidence in an AfD thread. NAGR was cited by the United States Supreme Court in the McDonald v Chicago case. How much more notable does the group need to meet the almighty standard for Wikipedia? AfD should be closed with the result keep.Rf68705 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Multiple !vote struck out.) -- Trevj (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Keep - Article indeed has some promotional aspects, but it is a widely mentioned organization: Goggle hits (web & news) are adequate. --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Delete. I've done some more research on this, and although there are a significant number of ghits, the organization appears to be a 1-person money-making organization, with little independent recognition or accomplishments. The mentions in google are very minor and incidental; often it is just mentioned in passing. So, although it is a legitimate organization, it is tiny and does not appear to meet WP notability guidelines. --Noleander (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new to WP but I believe notability requires significant coverage, not just wide mention and lots of Google hits. I am concerned that Wikipedia is being used to establish the legitimacy of an otherwise non-notable organization, for example here (scroll about half way down to 04-10-2012, 9:06 A). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 16:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An IP user has independently expressed concern (also on the talk page of this article) that The article in Wikipedia is clearly there to gve credibility to the scam. The page probably needs to be removed and something put in place so that it isn't created again. -- Trevj (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Scrap this article, and start over There are two arguments for deletion in this discussion, lack of notability, and excessive promotion. The original nomination, and much of the commentary here has concerned notability, and on that basis I'd weakly advocate keeping the article. However, I am persuaded that there is excessive promotion such that a fundamental rewrite by neutral writers is required. Based on the admittedly vague ip complaint mentioned in the comment above, I investigated further. First, I note that the impressive search engine hits show signs of optimization - there all lots of links on different gun enthusiast forums with the same text, quoting the organization's name and the full name of the executive director. Based on that, since I saw the organization is registered as a public tax exempt organization, I pulled the most recent tax filing I could obtain - 2010. (If you want to search for it yourself, the IRS form is 990, and group's tax id number is 542015951). It shows this organization has a total 8 employees, and 4 board members. Only 1 of the members - the executive director again - works full time. The other 3 work 1 hour a week for the organization. The group reported receipts of around 1.7 million dollars, and spent 1.5 million of that on internet marketing, direct mailing, telemarketing, and donations. The total salary it paid to its employees was about $125,000. Now, I admit, none of these things means that the group should not have an article - it has been mentioned briefly in a couple of reliable sources, and seems to be actively fundraising and advocating its position. However, I decline to stick my head in the sand, and pretend that a group appears to exist almost entirely on the internet and direct marketing fundraising is not trying to use this article as an attempt not just to inform, but as part of the group's fundraising aims. As such, I advocate a clean start, preferably one by writers w/ no affiliation with the group. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION and Xymmax's comments - but allow NPOV re-creation. I did a little research regarding notability and concluded that there are barely enough reliable sources to just qualify WP:CLUB/WP:GNG. However, there is the similarly-named (though AFAIK unrelated) 'National Association for Gun Rights India' which does artificially inflate search engine hits. If I had the time and inclination, I'd offer to attempt a rewrite myself, which would result in an article a fraction the size of the current one. I also feel I'm probably not alone in appreciating the honesty that User:Rf68705 has demonstrated in disclosing his connections to the group. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NOTPROMOTION is the one I meant. Link added. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Faustus37 (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment: This AfD has been outstanding for the better part of a month with no decisive outcome one way or the other. Propose Close No Consensus (I'm not non-admin closing this again). Faustus37 (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - against No Consensus. I don't really agree with that conclusion, but of course I am biased. I think there is consensus that the article should not stay as it is and closing no consensus is essentially the same as a keep. Much of the detailed (and occasionally bordering on bullying) support has been from a single (and single purpose) editor. I think we should finish this, in the very least creating a space for a more appropriate article as described above. heather walls (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Plenty of others (including me) have voted Keep. I have no connection with this organization or any of its principals. Recall the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Pillar Three is Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute (emphasis mine). We're not here to censor. We're here to document the good, bad and ugly. WHO CARES if the principal contributor to date has a COI? The notability is there. As with anything else here, that'll be corrected soon enough. Faustus37 (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A third relist when the discussion was scheduled to finish tomorrow doesn't really make much sense to me. -- Trevj (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I missed that. I sincerely doubt 24 hours would have tipped the discussion one way or the other, though. Faustus37 (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well, that's unfortunate - WP:RELIST suggests no more than two relists under normal conditions - but ultimately harmless. I too disagree with a preemptive nonconsensus close. I actually think that keep, NC, and delete are all within admin discretion here depending on how the arguments are weighed. Let a closer handle it, that's why we pay them the big bucks. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep Why is this even here? An organization with 1.8 million members, stated in a legal document. Has sufficient and suitable coverage to meet wp:notability. I Googled for a complete string match for their entire name and got 2.8 million hits. Scanned through the first few hundred of the 2.8 million and every one was a reference to this organization. I also noted that an invalid reason was cited in a large number of the "delete" weigh-ins which was deleting because the article has flaws (too promotional, unbalanced etc.) These are not valid reasons for deleting an article, they are reasons for fixing it. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi there. It's not about how many hits they get (see: WP:GHITS), but the quality of those sources. If you take a look at many of the hits you see, many are from non-reliable sources, non-neutral sources, etc. Or perhaps the organization has a mere mention. I believe that organizations fall into the same notability guidelines as other subjects - just because they have memberships, or are a legal entity doesn't mean they meet notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the 2.8 million real listings just as a reinforcement on top of meeting the normal criteria, not in place of it. We have zillions of Wikipedia articles on obscure individual ballplayers, towns with 10 people in them, etc. I find in incredulous that there is even a discussion of possibly deleting coverage of an an organization with 1,800,000 members. North8000 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked for 1 minute and found a New York Times article covering a piece of national legislation, and that the National Association for Gun Rights was in conflict with the NRA on it. Well, there's the first minute. I put it in. (the article does need Wikifying) North8000 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked another 1 minute and found a USA Today article ("Gun rights vs. gun control: Nation is again squaring off") with 2 paragraphs from an interview with a National Association for Gun Rights spokesperson. North8000 (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the USA Today material and reference.North8000 (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you're looking, see if you can independently verify the 1.8 million member number, and you'll be on your way to seeing why some are skeptical. The PDF I linked to above suggests that this "national" organization has 8 employees and 1 full time board member. It's annual budget is equivalent to a local restaurant or medium sized church. I think it's probably notable, but there's a lot of puffery going on. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about membership numbers. The 1.8 million members was a clear statement by them in a court document where BS'ing could easily mean jail time. 2.8 million Google hits that look pretty clearly on them is also a strong indication. Also that NY Times and USA Today quoted them for views on national issues, an covered their conflict of view with the NRA is also indicative. And those two articles are what I found in two minutes. This just bolsters that sourcing already in there satisfies wp:notability. The article certainly does need wikifying, but I would find it silly / incredulous for there to no article on them in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question It's worth pointing out that the tax form above shows revenues increasing by a factor of four from one year to the next. This speaks to me of not of an enduring organisation, but one of the many transient organisations that seem to string up in politics as fronts / spokespeople for various groups. Is there any evidence that this organisation has spanned multiple US electoral cycles? Short-lived organisations would tend to fall into WP:1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject does not satisfy our notability requirements per WP:GNG.

From WP:NRVE...

"No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason."

From WP:SIGCOV...

"Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."

The article fails policy on several accounts. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What the previous author accuses of being “brief mentions or quotes” is guided by his subjective opinion of what it “Significant coverage” per the wiki guidelines. He had to try and apply that subjective standard to no fewer than TEN sources that independently mention the group in various forms to try and make his argument. Sorry, but that's a tough sell.

Here is another way of looking at the same material the previous poster pointed out in those fancy looking drop down menus…

From WP:SIGCOV...

"Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."

These mentions ARE more than trivial mentions in the article, but even if YOU think they are not, they still clearly demonstrate a level of saturation enough to establish basic notability.

From Wikipedia:ORG...

“Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.” Previous poster's second pretty drop-down box is an attempt to discredit sources that are justified by this statement and the ten + sources he subjectively and inaccurately discredited. By the way, just because the other half dozen or so local firearms groups are firearms related does NOT mean they are “lacking independence from the subject.” The dubject is National Association for Gun Rights, not firearms or firearms groups. Most, if not all of those groups existed apart from NAGR and previously affiliated with other national organizations instead. The fact that they now reference NAGR in their works demonstrates they think that NAGR is credible.

From WP:NRVE...

“Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. … In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.” This statement is more than satisfied. The sources provided demonstrate an ongoing context through a broad range of coverage relating to multiple works and events.

It's noteworthy to point out that in the process of this AfD thread, proponents for keep (not just me) have essentially rewritten this article. It is not the same article originally nominated. Significant new sources have been added, and it has been made clear that the organizations notability is growing, not shrinking. Despite the increase in notability reference (which cumulatively are more well laid out than, say Gun Owners of America), those advocating for delete haven't touched the content of the article, and have demonstrated nothing more than a predisposition for their position based on hearsay in gun discussion threads.

Wikipedia is here as a comprehensive encyclopedia, if you think something violates NPOV, click the edit tab, and change some words around to address your concerns. North8000 at least had the willingness to improve the article in accordance, and as encouraged by, the guide to deletion. I will likely work on expanding on that today, including a recent article from the Colorado statesman which cited the group as the primary opposition to gun control measures expected in the State of Colorado. These are the kind of building blocks that are needed in a project like Wikipedia.

The article would be better served if the opponents of the organization would address the subject matter by improving the article instead of fighting a flame war over AfD. That would bring the balance the article allegedly needs.

Nevertheless, some will continue to argue that an organization referenced in a US Supreme court decision, by the USA Today, Wall Street Journal, and recognized by more than a half-dozen state groups (actually its more than that)as a national affiliate and with growing political influence isn't notable enough. There isn't going to be any convincing them, and I hope the person making the final decision takes that into account.

Another previous poster argued about the organizations finances. He was wrong, and presented misleading information. In presenting IRS form 990 he presented 2010 but omitted and failed to mention that the organization reported revenue of $3.7 Million in 2011. I do not see any rule where submitting a detailed accounting of a c4's budget is a prerequisite to establishing notability. Even so what is available indicates the group is growing substantially, and for a political organization to double its budget as claimed in the court document (under penalty of perjury) of $5 to $6 Million in an even year (especially a Presidential election year) is not a-typical for most c4's. For those of you who are unfamiliar, 501c4 organizations are not the same as PACs. C4s get into issue discussion and are therefor not subject to FEC "election" reporting guidelines, meaning you are relying at the speed of the IRS to post newer information online. That does not prohibit anyone who has a question from calling the IRS and asking for that information for NAGR's c4. The FEC of-course will continue to release information on PAC's as it becomes available, but that information is cited in the article with respect to NAGR's separate PAC and is growing from prior years.

NAGR has more than a few board members and part time employees, and the Executive vice-president isn't the only full time employee. In fact there are significantly more, not that any of the opponents would know for certain based on information available, but a group that has gone from 1.7 million to 5 million in the last four years... not unheard of for investing in staff. North8000 pointed out Luke O'Dell's is Director of Political Operations. Much like the NRA's La Pierre and Keene, or GOA's Larry Pratt it is quite common for organizations to center one or two people as the public face of their group. The number of paid staff and the level of involvement of groups spokesperson are not valid reasons for an AfD, but if YOU think it is -- the group is growing, not shrinking.

Previous posters have mentioned my admission of connections to the group. That doesn't mean inherently I am not committed to seeing an article worthy of Wikipedia, or that I some how want to see bias or promotion in the article. Quite the contrary. I WANT others to scrutinize it and change it. News flash: Groups care about their image on the web, and the most likely person to create, edit or AfD such an article is the person with a bias one way or another. Imagine if every controversial article has opponents resort to lobbing every Wiki-policy bomb they can find to AfD it. We wouldn't be left with a whole lot of controversial topics. That's why you have the ability to keep them on track as you see fit by editing articles to conform to the standards you so excitedly use to attack it.

Finally... (to end on a lighter note) if NAGR is notable enough for [http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/why-i-chose-newt-over-santorum/ Chuck Norris to reference], (who is amongst other things, *cough*: an NRA celebrity) it's notable enough for Wikipedia.

Rf68705 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and once you remove all of the chaff from a Google search you'll have less than 30 hits left. The group fails WP:GNG. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mention in an article that is about something else is NOT reliable sourcing, no matter how much the above editor wants it to be. Being interviewed about something proves nothing other than you exist. Nothing in any sources is substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject. The numerous articles cited do a wonderful job of proving the organization exists. Existence does not equal notability. So, my vote is delete as it fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This organization isn't notable. --Shorthate (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2012 (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.