Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill of Rights Defense Committee


 * 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   Delete. The consensus below is that there are insufficient sources to support an article at this time. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Eight year old article with ZERO citations. Edit summary from when NPOV tag was placed --two years ago-- says: "Reads like it could be the "about" page at the group's website (not saying its plagarized, just a comment on tone".  That editor had the right idea, but failed due diligence.  Spot checking with Google reveals that's exactly what we have here.  WP:SPS, WP:GNG, etc.  Belch fire - TALK  05:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep An Articles for Deletion debate should be about the inherent notability of the topic, not about whether or not the highest-quality references now exist in the article. A Google Books search reveals this statement about the group "The Bill of Rights Defense Committee has been supported by more than 114 legislatures in cities, towns and counties, as well as the states of Alaska and Hawaii." Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources includes this and this and this and this and this. HighBeam Research shows coverage of the early months of the group in The Spokesman-Review in 2003 here. The solution to the nominator's perceived notions about the shortcomings of the current version of the article is to expand the article and add better sourcing, not to delete an article about a notable topic.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple name-drops, no depth of coverage on the group itself. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not convinced that all of the five book sources mentioned by Cullen328 count towards WP:GNG. this fails independence because the content about BORDC is copied from their website; this mentions BORDC in one sentence, hardly significant coverage; ditto for this source and this one; this source has no preview, so I can't tell how significant the coverage is. The Spokesman-Review source, on the other hand, seems good, I'll see if I can find more sources of that quality. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 09:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Scant mentions of "the group sponsored this too" in google books searches fail to satisfy WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete From WP:GNG, " '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." No detail is given in the sources cited by Cullen; they're passing, trivial references. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to be a legitimately notable organization.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.