Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Legislator's Against Illegal Guns


 * 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   delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

State Legislator's Against Illegal Guns

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Speedy tag keeps getting removed, by what may be a sock. By the creators own words, a new organization that only has info on its own website, see talk page. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per WP:TOOSOON, notability not established. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I see some sites have changed up, but it appears the original creator actually included links that are against this group posing as being FOR the group, ie: it was started with NPOV issues. Still isn't notable, but more reason it should have been speedy deleted, which I'm still all for (if some SPA hadn't kept removing), A7, as well as vandalism from the start.  Dennis Brown (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No sources, no indication of notability. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Clearly fails WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep; if the article got off to a bad start, that doesn't mean the subject is unworthy. I've put a source on the page, but this set-up says it's been around for -8- nearly 6 years,correction and is an offshoot of another organization which we do see as notable, so there must be more about it somewhere. I'm all for giving it a chance. Swanny18 (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (PS: Got the time wrong; I've fixed it. Also added another source. Swanny18 (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't about "giving it a chance", it is about significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A look at the sources provided doesn't impress.  A blog and the other one is an "announcement", which is the government's equivalent of a press release, and can't be used to establish notability.  On all counts, neither pass WP:N/RS as establishing notability.  Seriously, if this was notable, wouldn't there be dozens of news articles on it?  It isn't, which is why we are here. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2012 (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.