Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access


 * 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. Those calling to delete have not adequately answered the arguments that this organization has received a little bit of coverage, something which matters according to the WP:N guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I just don't see anything that shows this one as being notable. Giving it a chance at AFD instead of speedy in case I'm missing something. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's had some coverage. WilliamH (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. some more coverage. --DruU (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment asserts at least some importance politically, so not a speedy; I removed the speedy tag. Let's see what can be found DGG (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep per the sources provided by WilliamH, and especialy druUtopia. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per A7 and, to a lesser degree, G11 (even if it is a non-profit). Frank  |  talk  15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Frank above - Importance - First Veteran Association to assist Veterans with Medical Marijuana issues... Very important to a veteran that loses their Medical Benefits even though they have Doctor Recomendation.  As for Advertising???  How is this Advertising and Marijuana Policy Project is not?  There is no advertising here.--DruU (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - First to do or be something does not automatically confer notability. This organization is based in a state where the activity is illegal. As for the referenced article, other stuff exists applies. As to advertising, the page as it stands simply lists the existence of the organization and who runs it. I would add that, since patient-doctor conversations are already privileged communication, the bit about "legal ramifications" is a red herring. This article does not establish notability in any sense of the word. If it came back later and did so - perhaps when it is actually notable - that would be a different story. Frank  |  talk  15:49, 5 May 2008 (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.