 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 March 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Notability edit
This article doesn't demonstrate the notability of the topic. I have made some proposals at Talk:National Rifle Association#Friends of NRA. Felsic2 (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Grassroots? edit
It's not a grassroots organization if the top guy in the national organization and an industry leader thought it up. Grassroots in this usage is a form of greenwashing. Rhadow (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Recent edit edit
Preserving here by providing this link; content removed was promotional 'cruft.
There's not much left, so parhaps a merge / redirect to National_Rifle_Association#Interconnected_organizations?. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- When all the cited material is removed, there is not much left. Have restored article. No need to do a hit on the article just because it is related to the NRA. Have restored cited article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- There was a previous attempt to delete this article. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Friends_of_NRA but this article was kept. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman The recent edits, substantially increasing the size of the article, are almost without exception sourced from the subject. As a result, the article looks very promotional to me. Rhadow (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- The edit "Restore article" came across as promotional and I've reverted it. The org's own website and various press releases are WP:SPIP sources and are not suitable for extensive sourcing in this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Extremely promotional, which is unsurprising, as it is lifted word for word from the NRA's and the Friends of NRA's own pages. I hardly know which NRA-related page to link to, as a lot of them come up on a google search for phrases such as "fund-raising program conceptualized by National Rifle Association of America" or "activities are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety". But see for the first paragraph of the lead section added by Miguel Escopeta for instance this, and for the second paragraph NRA's own "mission statement" here, on their 2014 annual report. Those are blatant copyright violations, Miguel, unless you represent both organizations (Friends of NRA as well as NRA itself) and own the copyright yourself, or have their explicit, reproducible permission to use their material. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's copyright rules, which are quite strict. That's because the Wikimedia foundation doesn't want to be sued. But also, permission or not, the self-description of any organization is hardly ever suitable for incorporating in a Wikipedia article, as they are highly unlikely to be neutrally formulated, and Wikipedia is not a megaphone for organizations to promote themselves. See for instance WP:Avoid mission statements. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC).