Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal Community Against Violence


 * 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   speedy keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal Community Against Violence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Organization doesn't seem close to being at all notable and all sources are primary sources. GladiusHellfire (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Admin note: The AfD nominator has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete The organization is not notable enough for wikipedia and doesn't receive significant coverage. All sources are primary and article doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. IronKnuckle (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The AfD nominator has been confirmed by CheckUser as a sockpuppet of this account. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Per above and per nom  Jay Jay What did I do? 02:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Did anyone perform a basic WP:BEFORE search here?  Note the copious references at GNews  and this recent article  that discusses this organization's battle with the National Rifle Association and that that points out that the organization is now called the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence which in turn takes us to hundreds more GNews references?  --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Yep, I found it to be not notable. And the article is using all primary sources. GladiusHellfire (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and speedy close. Another bad faith AFD nomination from a recently arrived SPA with a political agenda. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Hey Wolfowitz, please assume good faith! WP:AOBF How about you give a policy based reason to Keep(if you can find one, I cant.) and less of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. IronKnuckle (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To the surprise of, I suspect, virtually no one, the nominator here has been exposed as a sockpuppet of IronKnuckle, who posted this nomination in violation of their community-imposed topic ban. It's more than fair to say that the inference of bad faith, per WP:NOTSUICIDE, is more than amply justified. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG J1nx1337 (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — J1nx1337 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep and clean up Meets GNG but needs work as do most articles. Insomesia (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't pass WP:ORG Dinkleberger (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC) — Dinkleberger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This account has been blocked as a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - This AfD was created by a confirmed sockpuppet account that has been indef'd. Bad faith nomination. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, the organization has received a multitude of mentions in multiple reliable sources including in news and book sources. The organization has not been the primary subject of most of the published sources, but I can see it argued that the multiple mentions can add up to significant coverage of the subject, sufficient to meet WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that the only person saying delete that hasn't been blocked as a sockpuppet, has only one edit ever, and that for this AFD, so obviously they are also a sock. Can someone just speedy keep this already?   D r e a m Focus  18:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is still the nominator so letting the discussion run is advisable. Insomesia (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, he was blocked also.  D r e a m Focus  20:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooops, didn't notice that, sorry. Yes then, a snow close would seem appropriate here. Insomesia (talk) 20:27, 18 February 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.