Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defend Colorado Now (2nd nomination)


 * 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 per consensus. PeterSymonds (talk)  21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Defend Colorado Now
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A proposed 2006 ballot initiative that failed to submit enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Didn't make the ballot, therefore not encyclopedic. The first AFD was conducted while this was still attempting to qualify for the ballot and ended in no consensus. Delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. GoogleNews returns 168 hits. Looks enough to me to signify notability. However, if kept, the article needs serious improvement. It has been around since March 2006 and still has no references or citations. Probably should be stabified unless someone takes the time to produce verifiable references for the various facts mentioned. Nsk92 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - of course it is going to get 168 news hits, mostly from local Colorado newspapers I might add, from it having been a proposed ballot initiative. But notability is not temporary, and this proposed initiative did not even make the ballot.  Is there any evidence of continuing news coverage and interest in this topic?  KleenupKrew (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm-m. First, I would disagree, to a point, with your logic. To me the phrase " notability is not temporary" actually means something different, namely, that once an event has become notable, it remains notable even if the amount of coverage significantly decreases over time (it always does, no matter how widely covered an event was at the time). So to me the real question is how much coverage the proposal has received while it was being active. Moreover, in this case, even though the proposal did not gather enough signatures, it had won legislative support and, if the WP article is correct, was essentially passed into law as HB 1023 in July 2006 (actually, this probably needs to be verified). There were also some post-2006 references to DCN in the news, such as these, , , ,. Much as I personally dislike this DCN stuff, it does appear to pass WP:N requirements to me. Nsk92 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Colorado HB 1023 seems to be a notable enough law for an article (although it doesn't appear to have one), but DCN at most rates a paragraph in an article on HB 1023 as an unsuccessful precursor to that law. Anyway, the way I read "notability is not temporary" is if something gets immediate coverage but does not show any sign of being an encyclopedic topic indefinitely, it was never notable to begin with.  Sort of the non-biographical counterpart to WP:BLP1E as well as a guard against excessive WP:RECENTist bias in Wikipedia coverage.  I would support, as an alternative, moving/renaming this article to a broader one on Colorado HB 1023, leaving whatever DCN content is sourced and notable as a background to the passage of HB 1023.  DCN alone just isn't notable enough to stand as an article on its own.  KleenupKrew (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Barely WP:N and non-encyclopedic as the nom mentioned. Jedibob5 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Defend Article Now Keep as something with real world notability; referencing concerns should be addressed per SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like much in politics, spin matters.  Call this a ballot initiative that never got on the ballot, and notability is questionable.  Call it a political movement that resulted in the passage of specific legislation, and it appears in a different light.  Sourcing can be improved, but this is not a deletion matter. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The delete-arguers above appear to misunderstand the way WP:N works; Nsk92 is spot on. This was once notable = this is now notable, as far as we're concerned. —  iride  scent  22:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as this appears verifiable and notable. Legislation (or ballot initiatives) don't have to suceed to become notable. See the Equal Rights Amendment for an example. B figura  (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are fifty states, most of which have an initiative system. If we added every proposed initiative that fails to make the ballot Wikipedia would be overwhelmed with proposals that never met the minimum level of support. I'm in favor of having articles on politicians who win primaries and participate in elections, but I'm opposed to creating articles on people whose chief claim to notability is having failed in a primary. Likewise with initiatives. Also, looking at the last AfD for this topic I think it is was incorrectly closed. Delete/merge appears to have been the more popular choice than the two "weak keeps".  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep major state-wide event with much more general political implications, as discussed n the article. DGG (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not just any failed ballot initiative. Miami33139 (talk) 17:33, 12 May 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.