Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado Amendment 50 (2008)


 * 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). VG &#x260E; 22:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Colorado Amendment 50 (2008)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. This is an amendment has not even passed. VG &#x260E; 06:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC) VG &#x260E; 06:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Sources to establish notabilty found (please add them to the article). VG &#x260E; 22:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 06:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 06:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Amendment need not be passed to be notable (see Equal Rights Amendment), and sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comparing this to the ERA on the basis that neither were passed into law is...inaccurate. Protonk (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It directly rebuts one of the excuses for deletion "This is an amendment has not even passed" and is...accurate. Alansohn (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. It is literally accurate to say that neither the ERA nor this were passed into law.  It is, however, not appropriate to equate the two as numerous books and countless articles have been written about the ERA.  I agree that "not passed into law" is not a deletion criteria, but the claim that third party sources needs to exist still stands. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At no time did I claim that Colorado Amendment 50 (2008) and the ERA are equivalent. All I was going for is literal accuracy in addressing an excuse for deletion that the amendment had not passed. I have done so successfully. Alansohn (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mostly because "was never passed into law" isn't a reason for deletion. Protonk (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started adding reliable and verifiable sources, and there should be more down the road as the November election approaches. The notability standard appears to be satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Could someone explain to be why the official | 2008 State Ballot Information Booklet is not a reliable source? I'm not trying to be argumentative, this is my first article and I was planning on writing more in the future on the other initiatives on the ballot this year. Just trying to learn how things are done here on Wikipedia! Venom087 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply. It's not sufficient for something to be verifiable to be added to Wikipedia. It must also be notable (in narrower sense than the general English usage of the term). Searching for "Colorado Amendment 50" on Google I found only blogs and youtube videos. These are not sufficient to establish the notability of the topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. You need to provide some reliable, third-party sources for that. It's perfectly okay however to document the details of the amendment from its primary source (i.e. the text of the proposal). Hope this helps. VG &#x260E; 20:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources provided satisfy the Notability standards in that it has received "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That you would find few references to "Colorado Amendment 50" is probably due to the fact that our article title is not what the amendment is called. Searching for "Colorado" and "Amendment 50" will get you more results to support notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see a couple of local newspaper stories in the search you've indicated. Nothing that falls outside NOT. VG &#x260E;
 * The 'Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post are hardly what one would call "local newspapers" -- the two papers were ranked 31 and 32 by circulation in 2006 -- nor would a lower placement disqualify these as reliable sources. As much as NOT is abused, it is most often pushed as an excuse for deletion for a one-time event or incident, which would be of even less relevance than usual here. Alansohn (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2008 (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.