Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky Mountain Gun Owners

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 keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 00:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners

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

Hopelessly devoted to advocacy to the extent that the only way to write a neutral article would be to start over.The tone is wrong, the language is biased (there are 6 mentions of "rights" in the lede paragraph alone), there is no mention of any criticism or opposition, they take responsibility for the success of everything they've been engaged in (most of the references are not about them in any substantial way, but about measures they for which they are one of the supporters--they actually claim notability from testifying before a legislative committee.) A more elaborately bas article as the similar one also now up for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Association for Gun Rights.

I recognize that this is a controversial subject, so I don't want to simply delete it myself as G11, unless there's agreement to do it as a speedy delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable organisation. I disagree with the practice of deleting articles solely because they're promotional. Yes, this article needs to be extensively rewritten, but it would be a lot easier to use the existing article as a starting point, rather than have to rewrite the whole thing from scratch. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally not remarkable. Clearly no one other then the creator is willing to defend this page. It must go. There is no article on gun ownership in any other country. Why should a small U.S. "club" get any mention. It makes no reference to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and subsequent violations of armed settlers. Leng T'che (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. RMGO is one of the most successful state level gun organizations in the country, and by far the most successful non-NRA affiliate state group . Their impact in the state-level primaries in Colorado has been duly noted by their opponents. Previous comments should direct their criticism to substance, not the mere fact that a defender happens to be a creator. "Why should a small U.S. "club" get any mention" -- this question is not valid. Please refer to notability guidelines to either prove/disprove notably or lack thereof. The great thing about Wikipedia is we have the ability to explore subjects and content to their fullest potential from historical context to modern implications, again the major criteria being notability. The lack of articles in other countries does not prove lack of notability in this case. It seems in the Gun_politics article, there are any number of notable gun organizations in other countries that could be explored further in their own articles. This article needs some touch-up, citation clarifications and revision. I don't have time tonight, but expect to in the coming days hopefully before the 7 days are up. Otherwise recommend re-nomination as alternative to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rf68705 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it would be impossible to write an acceptable article, or that the group is non-notable. I'm saying that the present article is too promotional to survive, and that anyone who wants to write an article on it should start over. WP does not judge the merit of causes--rather, we avoid promoting any of them, even the most important. That this group is somewhat controversial is why I did not summarily delete the article, but is irrelevant to whether or not it should stay in Wikipedia. If you think you can fix it quickly, by all means have a try--I would have done so myself if I thought it possible, but this is the sort of thing where I like to find myself proved wrong. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New revisions should address all concerns raised in this AfD. Notability and promotional issues should be resolved. The article is significantly better referenced than it was. Evident biases and promotional statements have been removed, criticisms have been incorporated. While I'm not immune to my own writing biases, remaining primary source materials previously argued to be promotion should now be within tolerance levels of notability guidelines that allow for some primary sources after notability has been established. Hope you like it. It was not a quick fix. Nevertheless, after spending a good chunk of my day working on it, it's done. Please feel free to proof my changes, fix any errors and add to it if you see something else. AfD should be closed with the result keep :) Rf68705 (talk) 04:36, 28 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, →B music ian 04:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not entirely sure why this was relisted after the changes. Article as revised would stand had it been created from scratch. Nevertheless, my previous comments stand. Sigh... I guess we'll just have to wait out another seven days of this... Rf68705 (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've not checked the full edit history, but it's no longer promotional: enough use of words like "controversial", "strident", and accounts of criticism. Since we seem to agree it's notable, it should stay. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor a low bar on keeping political entities such as this; this is the sort of thing that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. That normative statement aside, there is more than adequate independently published and substantial coverage extant dealing with the group and its activities. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - understand why it was nominated (the previous version looked un-salvageable), but the subsequent clean-up was substantive and surprisingly effective. Grenade no longer necessary, in my opinion. Stalwart111 01:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having just taken a first look through, the article is not so inherently biased that it cannot be salvaged. That doesn't mean that I'd give the current revision a clean bill of health. Considerable (though more implicit) POV issues and associations remain, and the article should be tagged accordingly. I question whether a neutral article, written (or overseen) by disinterested parties can be expected to last for more that a few weeks after this scrutiny is lifted. The same POV & COI issues that brought us to this point are sure to creep back in.Celtechm (talk) 17:07, 29 November 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.