Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four boxes


 * 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. Nom withdrew. Notability beyond doubt. Keep!   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  05:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Four boxes of liberty

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not meet the general notability guideline. I can find no reliable sources. I have read it online elsewhere, but that does not make it notable. As an aside, the article previously had a blog personal webpage as a source (going against WP:SPS). There is a possible COI as well. Evil saltine (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn per new sources added. Evil saltine (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  07:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Striking my vote, the article has had much improvement, and looks good to keep.  [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  15:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is clearly notable, but, it needs a reference. BlueRobe (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I challenge you to present some in support of your argument, then. I went looking, and I discovered that whoever the Dan Skinner who is supposed to have said this is, it isn't Daniel Skinner. Uncle G (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I moved it from the (now) disambiguation page Four boxes to Four boxes of democracy and added some sources. Possibly "Four boxes of liberty" would be a better title. It seems to be a fairly widely used concept in the pro-gun lobby (search results), even though there are no books or scholarly articles on the subject. Note that the link to this article from the article on the originator of the meme, Ed Howdershelt, also recently nominated for deleted, was removed just before the nomination. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the references added are reliable sources. They are all blogs, message boards, or self-published websites (Howdershelt refers to Abintra Press as "my website" ). These sources don't establish notability. Evil saltine (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The refs show a wide variety of independent sources which seem sufficient to establish notability. Possibly the concept is mentioned in some newspaper articles. I am inclined to give it the benefit of doubt. Seems harmless, probably useful to readers, not SYNTH. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the general notability guideline, notability is established by reliable sources. Multiple questionable sources don't add up to a reliable source. The article has existed since December 2008 without reliable sources being added; this suggests it is unlikely to happen in the future. We can always recreate the article if the phrase gains notability that can be reliably sourced. Evil saltine (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added some sources that may be considered reliable: Anti-Defamation League, American Journal of Political Science and Time Magazine. They do not support the concept, but report its use. I suspect there are many more reliable reports on usage of the meme buried in the mountain of sites that quote it. The self-published sources, advocacy sites etc. would not be considered reliable sources for a discussion of the concept, but are valid sources to illustrate its use. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG as the article is now sourced with references establishing historical and modern usage as well as scholarly analysis of the phrase. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2010 (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.