Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence Policy Center


 * 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. SNOW, and bad-faith nomination. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Violence Policy Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable gun control organization, fails WP:GNG, uses primary sources. IronKnuckle (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Per IronKnuckle. Maydewsl (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IronKnuckle (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep While I disagree with their politics, it would seem that they do meet WP:GNG. I would agree that refs in the article could be improved, but that should not be too hard, and is not a reason to delete the entire article.  A simple Google search shows that this group is widely cited in the media, so their positions can be divined from these statements.  EricSerge (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The article uses many primary sources, how much of that media is reliable sources and not routine coverage? IronKnuckle (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)'''


 * Keep - Plenty of reliably sourced coverage. If "too many first party sources are being used", then fix it, as the coverage is clearly out there. Please see WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73   msg me   15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I couldnt find a way to improve it, deletion was the only option. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what steps you took in trying to find a way to improve it? I don't see you making a single edit to the article beyond the nomination. Seems like you came to that conclusion awfully fast. Sergecross73   msg me   16:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a quick thinker, but I thoroughly analyzed it before taking action. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a real answer. What steps beyond "thinking" did you do? Sergecross73   msg me   16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I analyzed it against wikipedia policy and made up my mind. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's all the detail you can go into, it's pretty clear you're bluffing or making this up as you go along. Your explanation has all the depth of "My dog ate my homework". Sergecross73   msg me   16:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. As much as I disagree with their politics, they are nevertheless notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * keep Existing sources may be not good enough, but many valid sources do exist. They are quoted often in top level political debates and studies on gun violence. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Studies? What studies? Where? and by whom? Why wasnt this in the article? IronKnuckle (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously, with 4,670 results on Google books alone it passes. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:30, 22 January 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.