Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun Nut

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Bucketsofg 01:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Nut[edit]

Gun Nut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is essentially an dictionary definition and really cannot be more than that, thus running afoul of WP:NOT. There also seems to be a bit of WP:POINT behind this as well; it was created after the creator used the term in an WP:ANI discussion. Delete. Isotope23 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It's a valid term for a Wikipedia page. I modeled it after the following page that has not been deleted for the same reasons...

--BillyTFried 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete It is little more than a definition, with virtually no grounds for espansion, so it fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Also, it's very POV, in that it discusses a POV topic not from a neutral standpoint, but as an excuse to coyly suggest that gun control is irrational by pointing out a conterargument that makes up the bulk of the article. Calgary 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both this and the Commie article mentioned above as dictionary definitions. Also, I agree with User:Calgary above that this article appears to be the subtle beginning of a WP:COATRACK. --Hnsampat 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have to agree it does appear to fail WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Perhaps it should be recreated at wikitionary. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've removed the POVish parts of the article, which now consists of one fairly short sentence. I also appreciate BillyTFried bringing the commie article to attention. If the original nominator would like to nominate that article for deletion along with this one, as they're pretty much in the same boat, I think that would be a good idea, otherwise I'll nominate the article myself. Calgary 21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wigger is a notable subject, if not a somewhat derogatory charicature, which does not have another name and does not recieve coverage anywhere else in wikipedia. Bimbo is another notable or culturally significant stereotype, which the article discusses in appropriate detail. Derogatory terms alone do not recieve articles, unless they are terribly notable or historically significant. As far as stereotype goes, the "gun nut" does not seem to have enough prominence as a character (not just a term, but a well defined stereotype to go along with it) to be considered notable, although I wouldn't be terribly opposed to a redirect to Redneck Calgary 21:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again, Jock is an incredibly prominent American stereotype, Womanizer as well. Also, probably for the same reason I'm arguing, wimp does not have it's own article, it's just a disambiguation page. Calgary 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable slang, possible offensive too Giggy UCP 21:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then doesnt the same apply for Commie or Bible thumper or Butch or Jock or Bimbo or Wigger or Womanizer or Wimp or Twink??? --BillyTFried 23:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the above reasons as well as being regionally inaccurate; in British vernacular, the word 'nut' appended to a hobby can indicate enthusiasm without being pejorative, i.e. 'car nut'. EliminatorJR Talk 23:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same applies in the across the pond, and is my basis for strong delete - superβεεcat  23:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree it is more suited for a dictionary. Arthurrh 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is non notable - the fact of adding "nut" to the end of a noun to denote someone who has strong affinity for something may warrant an article, but every derivative of it certainly does not. - superβεεcat  23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YEAH BUT THERE IS A WIKIPEDIA PAGE FOR THAT!!!: Chocoholism — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyTFried (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking myself as a sample, the canvassing is backfiring. Delete per WP:DICT. —Tamfang 23:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: The creator of the article that is the subject of the AfD has just spammed 13 talk pages of editors asking them to "vote for whether Gun Nut deserves deletion or not" (see example). I've asked the editor to stop, per WP:CANVASS. However, it is possible the field for this AfD may be subsequently polluted and consensus not be determinable due to this act. Editors that have been spammed are User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:Thatguy96, User:PianoKeys, User:Crimson30, User:I already forgot, User:Arz1969, User:Redxiv, User:TMC1982, User:MoraSique, User:DAGwyn, User:Tamfang, User:Arz1969, and User:Crserrano. --Durin 23:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's polluted this AfD, I was canvased and it has backfired. It's pretty apparent that consensus will be deletion. - superβεεcat  00:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. — DAGwyn 13:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that it was not acceptable as I have received such notices from other editors in the past, and I stopped immediately after being asked to. --BillyTFried 23:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problems with it, but if other users disagree with it, then we just have to respect there opinions. Thanks!--Ramírez July 10, 2007 (UTC)

I may just change it into a redirect to Gun politics. --BillyTFried 01:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with a redirect. As it was stated earlier, the usage of the term "nut" or "gun nut" is not an inherently derogatory remark, and it's certainly not inherently political. It is not generally accepted that the usage of the term "gun nut" expresses a specific political sentiment relating to politics, and therefore such a redirect would be inappropriate. Calgary 02:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see this article as adding to Wikipedia, as it is nothing but a definition and can not be expanded upon much further from what it already is. In fact, Gun politics covers the issue already.--LWF 02:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP is not a dictionary Corpx 02:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Gun culture. I see some clear scholarly interest in the social phenomena and term 'gun nut'. See this Google scholar search, especially the year 2000 article in the Journal of American Culture. This is notable, and could be better covered in a section or paragraph in the existing article Gun culture. If this material developed extensively, it could alway be split out into a stand alone article later. SaltyBoatr 02:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care I was canvassed, so that is my response. To the author: this is one sentence. Who cares. There isn't even anything to merge. Give me two or three paragraphs, and remove the identification as a perjorative because plenty of gun nuts revel in using the term. To the AfD closer: there should obviously be no prejudice on recreation. It could easily be a valid topic: it IS a term referenced by academic literature, it's used within gun culture as positive, and outside of it as negative. But even as as a valid topic, and even with my inclusionist value system... any legitimate topical article can be opened with at least two paragraphs. SchmuckyTheCat


Thanks for your input! Despite what some think, this isn't some petty tirade of mine but the result of hearing the phrase used enough times now to truly feel it needs some sort of acknowledgement of what it means and how it is perceived by pro-gun people, anti-gun people, and the general public. It seems the term is sometimes embraced by some gun owners but for many is offensive, the same way that some Blacks use the word Nigga alot and yet many are not OK with it in any form.(They had an actual funeral for that word the other day!) This is especially true for those who do not consider themselves in any way to to be represented by the term. I liken it to the difference between saying, Viral is an Islamist, instead of saying Viral is a Muslim, just like saying Bill is a gun nut, instead of saying Bill is a gun owner. Whether it gets it's own page or shows up in a small section of another one, I feel that with all the complexities surrounding the phrase and it's diverse cultural impact that it definitely warrants some form of explanation. --BillyTFried 05:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was put up for deletion within 5 minutes of me creating the page leaving me no time to expand on it. --BillyTFried 18:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is best to start a page in user space (as a sub-page to your user page) and then move it out to article space once you think it is at a good standing point. Also, it is OK to have articles linking to a term which does not yet have an article. That way when the article is created there will already be inbound links. --StuffOfInterest 18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to do more research but I believe another point of interest about the phrase "Gun Nut" is that it's used by Police and the FBI as the name of a certain "Profile" they have established for use in identifying specific suspects that fit a particular description. --BillyTFried 18:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirectto Gun culture. Not that much to merge. I am sure I could find the term used in hundreds of published articles over the years, but it would still be a dictionary def or a slang term (often affectionately of self-used) directed toward gun enthusiasts, thus more suited to Wiktionary. Field and Stream has an "Ask the gun nut" column. ProQuest shows 60 published citations back to 1981, with 7 of them being the Field and Stream column. Edison 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to gun culture. The term is in common usage (thus making it reasonable to expect that Wiki users might look for it), but I fail to see how this article can ever be more than a dictionary definition. — Red XIV (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to gun culture. I don't think "gun nut" is a significant enough topic to deserve its own article, but should be mentioned (using essentially the current text) in the gun culture article. — DAGwyn 13:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in regards to a redirect... it doesn't really make much sense to redirect it to Gun culture when the term doesn't even appear in the article. A redirect should be predicated on either finding a target that mentions the term or finding a logical redirect and adding reliably sourced content on the term that works in the context of the article you are redirecting to. IMO, deletion makes more sense at this time without prejudice against future recreation of the article as an encyclopedia article with some sourced context beyond a definition.--Isotope23 14:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It could be added to that article. --BillyTFried 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I said that... except that should be done before it is redirected.--Isotope23 20:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I just added a new section to the article Gun culture that I will redirect this article to later today: Gun culture#Gun Nut --BillyTFried 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately your section is unsourced... I can see at least 4 places that need an inline cite. IMO, in the current state, this isn't a good redirect target.--Isotope23 20:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That entire article is predominantly unsourced. I'll see what I can find. I believe it is however good enough for a redirect of the term Gun Nut. It fits perfectly within the context of that article.--BillyTFried 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged them with fact tags (while 1 was actually tagged by someone else, but I concur with the assesment).--Isotope23 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - go to the dictionary and shine a light on the term; however, it is not an article. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was changed to a redirect and the AFD notice was removed from the article for a day by the creator. Presumably this was done without knowledge that this is not best practice during an AFD. I reverted to an article though there is a redirect in the history that can be reverted to if that is the close consensus.--Isotope23 14:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like should be a dictionary entry to me. Yaf 21:09, 18 July 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gun_Nut&oldid=1142540107"