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. "Poorly sourced", when the first words in the first reference, a Washington Post article, are "Mary Leigh Blek"? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Leigh Blek[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable person, fails WP:GNG, poorly sourced article. IronKnuckle (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poorly sourced? The article cites the Washington Post and PBS, both reliable sources. If the Bell campaign is as large as claimed, then she is notable as the cofounder. IronKnuckle, why have you nominated so many pro-gun control articles for deletion? I think you went through the gun-control articles hunting for ones that you could try to delete. Howicus (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please assume good faith Howicus, I only want to clean up unnessesary articles on wikipedia. There is only 4 sources to this article. IronKnuckle (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Appears to be either a bad-faith nominations, or someone with a terrible grasp on the WP:GNG. Take your pick, but either way, no logical grounds for deletion here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad faith, the article seemed inadequate and unimprovable. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.