The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Not a notable individual. Furthermore, this individual is apparently a scam artist and his organization ( National Association for Gun Rights) is nothing more than a scam organization. The content of the bio article on Dudley Brown (as well as the NAGR article) appears to have been created by Dudley Brown himself and largely fabricated (for example, contrary to what the bio article says, Dudley is NOT a college graduate). The internet is replete with info on this scam being run by NAGR and Dudley Brown. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. ROG5728 ( talk) 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC) reply
You may not realize this, but your assertion that "...the article currently violates..." leaves open the possibility that you believe that the policy lapses you think you see are fixable -- and are thus not grounds for deletion.
It is simply not relevant what gun-related blog-sites recognize when you can't find any WP:RS that assert Brown, or NAGR are scams. Your gun-related blog-sites are not RS.
Suppose you find some genuine RS that say Brown was a con-artist who employed scams? Those RS would help establish Brown's notabiity. Anyone who fooled the MSM into thinking he was a legitimate gun advocate, only to be exposes as a fraud artist a decade later? That would be notable. Geo Swan ( talk) 03:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply
If the article is broken (and I cast no opinion on if it is or not), then fix it. AfD is not for content cleanup. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 16:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC) reply