Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun politics in Brazil

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 keep. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 19:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gun politics in Brazil[edit]

Failure to find reliable sources, tagged since 2006. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I see Yaf's recently added references, but they do not really give reference to 'gun politics' in Brazil. Instead, they talk of gun law, gun violence, and gun ownership. Also the single paragraph on the 2005 referendum likely would be better covered in the article dedicated to that topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "gun law, gun violence, and gun ownership" are certainly elements of gun politics, no? Zagalejo^^^ 02:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is still a stub. Reliable sources exist for this topic, but require Brazilian gun politics expertise on the part of the contributing editor, with additional Portuguese language expertise. Brazil has a strong history of firearms production and gun politics, so the source material exists. However, failure to have such an expert editor contribute to this article is not grounds for deletion of a stub article. Yaf (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have attempted to add reliable sources and do a general re-write of the article. Doesn't look like a stub any longer. Looks like a definite WP:SNOW at this point, to keep it. Yaf (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a good start, especially with the references added by Yaf. Zagalejo^^^ 19:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per precedent in Category:Gun politics --T-rex 16:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how this is an any less notable subject than Gun politics in the United States, which has a whole category along with subcategories and even subsubcategories of its own. I'm not arguing on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFWOULDNEVERBENOMINATEDFORDELETION. We shouldn't apply different notability standards for different parts of the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: References exists in the article. Much more can be easily found. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (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.