Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudley Brown


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Dudley Brown

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable individual. Furthermore, this individual is apparently a scam artist and his organization (National Association for Gun Rights) is nothing more than a scam organization. The content of the bio article on Dudley Brown (as well as the NAGR article) appears to have been created by Dudley Brown himself and largely fabricated (for example, contrary to what the bio article says, Dudley is NOT a college graduate). The internet is replete with info on this scam being run by NAGR and Dudley Brown. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. ROG5728 (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 *  Comment Keep - just a note, if he's a scam artist, it doesn't necessarily exclude him from notability. In fact, if any reliable sources discuss him/his alleged scamming in-depth, that makes him notable. This might just be a question of content (i.e., false content) instead of one of notability. Potential sources about Brown: http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/07/29/dudley-brown-recall-election/98956/ http://www.5280.com/magazine/2013/08/Dudley-browns-war http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/dudley-brown-hunt-democrats_n_3007267.html http://www.denverpost.com/recent/ci_22650330/colorado-gun-lobbyist-says-group-not-connected-gay?source=rss http://kdvr.com/2013/07/18/dudley-brown-defends-protesting-at-memorial/ — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Either way, most (or all) of the content in the Dudley Brown article seems to have been falsified or glamorized (not to mention self-authored), so I don't see any point in keeping it. ROG5728 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If the subject's notable, and this can be proven with verifiable, reliable sources, then the article being in a poor state isn't really a reason to delete it. You should take a look at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly the section "Surmountable problems". I'm going to give the article a quick one-over and see what I can do with it for a start. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, another source: http://kdvr.com/2013/04/03/dudley-brown-named-in-lawsuit-over-anti-civil-unions-mailer/ — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- As Cymru.lass points out above this nomination is not based on any of the recognized criteria for deletion. As Cymru.lass points out above, nominator's concerns, like that the article says Brown graduated, could be addressed by simple editing.
 * THe Nomination asserts Brown is a con artist -- but the only substantiation for this assertion are from gun rights blog sites. These aren't WP:Reliable sources.  A google news search for "Dudley Brown" scam seems to find no genuine matches.  What the blog-sites say is that Brown's organization targets gun enthusiasts with email requests for donations.  The blog-sites say Brown's organization claims Brown's pro-gun activities put him at risk, and he needs financial support for legal defense -- but that Brown has not actually undertaken any pro-gun act worth supporting, or meriting opposition from anti-gun groups, or legal authorities.
 * The blog-sites the nomination cites seem to be saying Brown is an opportunist, trying to cash in on the huge amount of money gun-enthusiasts have demonstrated they will send to the NRA. Some of those blog-sites seem to be speculating that Brown is not a genuine gun-enthusiast at all, but is actually a closet-liberal, whose genuine plan is to reduce the NRA's effectiveness by diverting donations from the NRA to his own group.  I see no RS backing up the gun-enthusiast blog-sites' claims.  If there were RS to back up those claims they would add to Brown's notability, not erode it.
 * The NRA is free to run its own wiki, with its own rules. If Brown is a notable individual, suppressing coverage of him, to protect the cause of gun-rights, is not consistent with the wikipedia's policies.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * GeoSwan, virtually anyone on any gun-related website on the internet recognizes NAGR as a scam, regardless of whether or not you found news sources supporting it; the sources I cited are only the tip of the iceberg. A simple Google search gives thousands of results. The point is, the article would be a tiny, irrelevant stub if we were to go through and delete all of the random misinformation added by Brown when he created it. The article currently violates a number of Wikipedia policies and it was created for the sole purpose of self-promotion anyway. Deleting it has nothing to do with the "NRA running its own wiki" or "suppressing coverage of him to protect the cause of gun rights." Grow up. ROG5728 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "The article currently violates a number of Wikipedia policies ... and it was created for the sole purpose of self-promotion anyway."
 * If you think the article violates policies is there a reason why you didn't list those policy violations in your initial nomination? Is there a reason why you haven't listed those policy violations in your followup?
 * You do realize that deletion is not the recommended solution for all instances when articles lapse from policy? When an article on a notable topic lapses from WP:NPOV, for instance, the recommended approach is to rewrite the portions of the article that show bias.  You may not realize this, but your assertion that "...the article currently violates..." leaves open the possibility that you believe that the policy lapses you think you see are fixable -- and are thus not grounds for deletion.
 * With regard to "...it was created for the sole purpose of self-promotion anyway." I looked at the contribution history, I saw no evidence that a single individual created the article.  I spent some time looking at the references to the article.  I saw real RS, like CNN, quoting Mr Brown as if he was a significant, legitimate figure in the pro-gun movement.  I don't see where the article goes beyond what the RS support.
 * The revision history shows exactly two edits by User:DudleyBrown & .  These two edits were not self-promotion.  They did not lapse from WP:COI.  75 other people edited this article.  Are you asserting that you somehow know that one of those other people is secretly Dudley Brown?  Or that several of those other people are secretly Dudley Brown?  This is a very serious allegation, for which you have offered exactly zero proof.
 * You write: "...anyone on any gun-related website on the internet recognizes NAGR as a scam..." It is simply not relevant what gun-related blog-sites recognize when you can't find any WP:RS that assert Brown, or NAGR are scams. Your gun-related blog-sites are not RS.  Suppose you find some genuine RS that say Brown was a con-artist who employed scams?  Those RS would help establish Brown's notabiity.  Anyone who fooled the MSM into thinking he was a legitimate gun advocate, only to be exposes as a fraud artist a decade later?  That would be notable.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * DELETE. This article is clearly self promotion and we cannot allow it to stand. If we do, then we will see thousands if not tens of thousands of people seeking notoriety by starting articles like this one, just to see their name and face on Wikipedia. If someone wants their 15 minutes of fame, let them do it someplace else.--RAF910 (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid reason for deletion. I would suggest you take a look at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly the section "Surmountable problems". — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken...self-promotion is strictly prohibited by Wikipedia and this article is clearly self-promotion.--RAF910 (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Self promotion is not allowed. However, no one has offered any justification to back up the claim this article contains self promotion.
 * If you are going to offer links to wikidocuments to back up your arguments, could you please try harder to make sure the wiidocuments actually do back up those arguments?  Self-promotion says nothing about deleting articles that have had self-promotional material added to them.
 * 76 individuals edited this article. If it was the work of a single non-notable individual, who made up a fantasy article about himself or herself, it would qualify for speedy deletion.  However, when we have an article where dozens of good faith individuals made over a hundred good faith edits, there is no way that article should be deleted if the subject of the article added or rewrote paragraphs of self-promotional material.  Rather we should merely excise or rewrite the self-promotional paragraphs.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I second what Geo Swan said. If you'd take a look at the page I linked above (WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions), specifically WP:SURMOUNTABLE, you'll see what I mean. If an article's subject is notable, self-promotion is a surmountable problem. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, almost all of the "good faith" edits on the page history were nothing but cleanup attempts (e.g. removals of blatant NPOV violations like these ones and this one). About 90% of the edits I see on the page history there are reverts and blanking. When the article was first created (and for years afterward), it was obviously filled with severe violations of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. Now that the article has been cleaned up to some extent (thanks in part to Cymru.lass), there's not much content left over, and much of it is either not noteworthy or else not directly related to Brown himself. For example, the article says "At the Colorado GOP convention in April 2012, RMGO and Dudley Brown supported pro-gun candidates..." So what? Is that really noteworthy? Of course not, and the whole article is like that. It's pure fluff. It could be reduced to a single sentence without losing any valuable content. ROG5728 (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit history doesn't really matter. If vandalism, violations of NPOV and COI are such a huge deal, the page can be protected. The question is, is this guy notable? I'm leaning towards yes. He's had significant coverage in more than one reliable source. The rest of the issues with this article are surmountable problems, and as you can see, editors are already at work on that. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep—A zillion G-News hits; here are three random ones [1] [2] [3]

If the article is broken (and I cast no opinion on if it is or not), then fix it. AfD is not for content cleanup. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 16:10, 6 September 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) 22:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Many reliable sources have been identified above; AFD is not cleanup. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:20, 15 September 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.