Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brew City Shooter Supply


 * 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. Consensus here is clearly for the article to be retained. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 06:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Brew City Shooter Supply

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article itself doesn't bother to make a claim to notability, but this shop was once in the news. It was formally called "Badger Guns." In 2010, the Brady Center center named it the No. 1 shop in the U.S. that sold guns to criminals. It no longer sells guns. I think this is covered under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. 2NewEvolution1 (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * strong/speedy keep A local gun store, mentioned by the brady campaign, the wall street journal, MSNBC, and multiple books  and multiple scholarly articles   Not sure what version of WP:GNG the nominator is thinking of here... At a minimum a WP:BEFORE failure, including not reading the multiple refs already in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It's pretty rare for one gun shop in a community to be called out for selling crime guns in a city, but this is definitely one and a source of tension in Milwaukee. Subject has been in the news multiple times based on just gun traces, and for their many name changes and ownership shuffles to stay in business. Sourcing is not an issue, and nominator stunted nomination by adding another source in their nom.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons stated above, although I know of three others that meet this criteria.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  23:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * comment As all !votes have been keep, and Nominator has now been blocked as a sockpuppet who was wikihounding me, which makes this eligible for speedy close as bad faith, if someone cares to do so. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Endorse per this blanking edit; user clearly made non-controversial edits solely to get auto-confirmed status and then start on this. Not closing this myself though.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:37, 9 July 2013 (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.