Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firearms Policy Coalition


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Firearms Policy Coalition

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

After a search, topic does not appear to pass WP:NORG. There are some passing mentions in reliable independent sources, but I was unable to find anything that amounts to significant coverage. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  06:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting, this discussion could use a few more participants and a review of the sources added to this article after its nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen&times; &#9742;  01:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Firearms,  and United States of America. –– Formal Dude   (talk)  06:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep i created this one. Went back and did some further research to support the basic article. It is not a super in depth one, but i think it is sufficient to pass basic WP:NORG WP:GNG now.Iljhgtn (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think your additions help much. You added several passing mentions that contain very little or no content about the organization itself, , , , , a promotional article from a source with questionable reliability that is not independent as it is 90% primary content directly attributed to the director of the organization , a company profile by Bloomberg that doesn't count towards notability , an unreliable source , and a non-independent source . –– Formal Dude  (talk)  01:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Found a source of them from Newsweek now too dating to 2019. Added that to the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable (WP:NEWSWEEK). –– Formal Dude  (talk)  06:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. While the writing in the article needs work, it clearly describes a legal advocacy group that has played a leading role in bringing several high-profile court cases.
 * Jbt89 (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's all nice and dandy, but does it meet any notability guidelines? –– Formal Dude  (talk)  07:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * From the WP:NORG section on non-commercial organizations, an organization is generally notable if:
 * (1) The scope of its activities is national or international in scale, and
 * (2) It has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the organization.
 * The article as written has links to FPC filing lawsuits in California, Oregon, Colorado, Texas, Delaware, and New York, so its activities (i.e. filing lawsuits; that's the purpose of the organization) are clearly national in scale.
 * The point of contention, if I've understood the past comments correctly, is (2), and in particular whether articles about actions taken by FPC (court cases, mainly) constitute substantive coverage of FPC. A brief bit of googling found me the following sources not so far mentioned:
 * :New York Times; two paragraphs about FPC in an article about trends in the firearms industry.
 * : New York times; one paragraph about FPC specifically in an article discussing an action taken by FPC.
 * : Texas Tribune. Yet another article about an action by FPC, but makes clear that the action is notable primarily because of FPC's involvement, and would not have been notable if undertaken by another actor.
 * There are probably more like these out there, and I'll add these ones to the article in a bit. Between them and the court cases already linked in the article (easy enough to find coverage of them in places other than Newsweek) I think this easily meets requirement (2). I will also point out that only the existence of sources, not their inclusion in the article, is required for WP:NORG. I think the difficulty we're having here is just that googling FPC brings up so many results to their own website that all the other coverage gets buried, so you have to be a little bit crafty with the search. Jbt89 (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're misrepresenting the coverage in those sources.
 * NYT: 3 sentences, borderline sigcov.
 * NYT: 1 sentence, passing mention about non-notable lawsuits, is only discussed in the context of ghost guns.
 * Texas Trib: I don't see anything suggesting the FPC is what makes their legal brief notable (which it most certainly isn't, I think you mean newsworthy - an amicus brief is very rarely notable enough for its own article). The source just covers how the FPC weighed in on Texas’ abortion law, and it is obviously very standard for a lobbying/advocacy organization to weigh in on all sorts of legislation. It doesn't suggest at all that the newsworthiness is from the FPC's involvement, nor that their opinion is particularly notable.
 * If this was a truly notable topic, there would be clear significant coverage of the organization itself, rather than just brief mentions about lawsuits they created and laws they supported/opposed. The mere fact that they have filed lawsuits and supported and opposed a bunch of different laws doesn't make them notable. If that were the case, practically every advocacy group in the world would be notable. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  08:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.