Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Gun Politicians
- 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Gun Politicians[edit]
I don't think anyone could dispute that the page as it stands is POV. I don't see that an article with this title could be made properly NPOV. It also has very limited geographic scope (only to one country). If this is intended as a list, then it would have to be a list of politicians by stance on gun ownership, or similar. David | Talk 20:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The title is inherently NPOV, and the article even more so. There are good articles on the gun control/gun ownership issue. This isn't one. Fan1967 20:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NPOV violation. It appears as if the author has a pro-gun control stance and is using WP to grind an axe. Even the title exhibits bias in the debate, so no amount of cleaning up will excise the NPOV violation. (aeropagitica) 20:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. List could never be encyclopedic anyway without adding untold thousands of names. --Aaron 20:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I started this page as a way to get the facts into wikipedia.I DISPUTE TKAT THIS PAGE AS IT STANDS IS POV. Since this page deals with the policies and actions of politicians with a certain philosophy ,namely,the most contentious issue in our country today,why not tell it like it is.As long as we stick to the facts and don't call it like we see it,then how can it be a certain point of view?
- The politicians who work to subvert the Constitution are not ashamed of their actions,why should I and you,not chronicle them.
- If you go to the page on Diane Feinstein and the talk page you will find that it would take about 6 paragraphs to accurately list her furtherance of gun control.tHAT WOULD PRODUCE A WILDLY LOPSIDED ARTICLE that would look POV,but this page is about the efforts of the Anti-Gun Politicians to remove guns from the hands of civilians.Wheather you think the result of that course of action would result in a safer country or a bloodbath of disarmed citizens,is your point of view.I have not inserted any point of view,or conversely,in the over view,I have presented both sides.(Safety vs.power)
- Finally,I AM offended.You can help edit this page and help keep it from becoming POV,but if you delete this page YOU guys are going to look to a bunch of people like some gun-control epithets.Try sticking to the facts.
- Matter of fact,I an really offended.If I type the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,do have to include the fact that Islam doesn't agree with that fact,to meet the standard of NPOV/POV?
- TALK TO ME BEFORE YOU DELETE MY WORK.PLEASE.Saltforkgunman 21:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your remarks about 'this country' are quite mysterious. There's nothing in the constitution of this country about it. But, yes, a page can be NPOV merely by listing facts. The reasons for this page being POV are that it covers only one side of the debate, and refers to them in terms which may not be entirely acceptable (would everyone on the list accept the title of "Anti-Gun politician"?). And no, you can't just put that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. You can say he is accepted as the Son of God by the Christian religion, and that's OK. David | Talk 21:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Irredeemably POV per nom. The people on the list do not fit the definition given: "An anti-gun politician is a politician that believes that civilians do not need and should not own,carry,or use guns." They might believe in restricting guns to a much greater extent than many people would like, but not to the extent of the definition or the title of the page. The summary of the differences of opinion about the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is POV. Most of the assertions lack citations, and the one that is present looks quite POV so reliability is a possible issue. Also keep in mind WP:OWN. AFAIK you're quite welcome to assert your belief JCitSoG on talk pages. Schizombie 21:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as POV fork. Also, for the creator of the page please be civil. In other talk pages the author of the article has also made it impossible to be seen as a NPOV contributor see these comments on Ted Kennedy talk page [1] [2].--Jersey Devil 22:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For a start the title should be something like American Anti-Gun Polititians as it seems to deal exclusively with that country.... Jcuk 23:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete partly original research, wholly POV. Just zis Guy you know? 23:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: title, anyone can change his stand at any time. Pavel Vozenilek 01:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I think "anti-gun" is too broad. Grandmasterka 02:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like it's unanimous.I'll comment on some of the points raised,and talk a bit more and then I think I'm about done replying to this.
If it appears,as you say, that I have a pro gun control stance,then I must be masking my pro freedom stance quite well and staying NPOV.
List is encyclopedic.There would be more names added to the list.This is just a start.
I don't see anything 'mysterious about my comments .And the words were:our country,not:this country.Yes,there is something in the (Constitution is spelled with a capital C,when referring to the U.S.Constitution) about it.It is called the Second Amendment.The page isn't a debate,it is about politicians with a certain agenda.Who cares what title they would accept?They earn the title when they try to subvert the Constitution and they violate their oath of office.
Granted gun control beliefs come in varying degrees of extremism,just as I have seen in progun stances.I disagree that the summary of the summary of differences are POV.The assertions are all true and the citations are in the internet to be found,as the page expands.haha.I deleted the one citation i posted,the only one I could find that showed the picture of Diane with the AK.
Hi Jersey.I was not being uncivil to anyone,on the Ted talk page,I was expressing my opinion that Ted is a piece of crap.I think Adolph Hitler was piece of crap,too.Idon't have to be seen as a NPOV contributor,that rule is restricted to my article.You should not judge this page by MY point of view expressed on talk.I'm a nice guy,and darn it,people like me.
I don't know.Our country is one of a handful of countrys where the people still have guns.It isn't hard to 'get it'that this about the U.S.
As soon as someone changes his stand,he can be deleted from the list.It's called editing.You're really stretching for that one.
Anti-gun is,once again,a fact,Would 'gun safety advocate' be more appealing?
Once more time.If a page contains a statement that Senator Feinstein is a socialist sow that seeks to subvert the Bill Of Rights,Violates her oath of office,and wipes her butt on the U.S. Constitution,then I have made a POV statement.I have been as NPOV as the facts can allow.
This is all sort of sad.I was going to make a contribution to wiki when I got my tax return.Saltforkgunman 19:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand many people on opposing sides of the issue have strong beliefs about it. But again, while the people on your list may believe in gun control or restricting gun rights (or whatever is the most neutral way of putting it), they don't fit your definition: "An anti-gun politician is a politician that believes that civilians do not need and should not own,carry,or use guns." And picking on someone for not capitalizing a letter is like picking on someone for failing to place an end quote, using sentence fragments, or not putting spaces after punctuation. In an article it would matter, but on a talk page, not so much. Schizombie 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but needs work, possible rename. It's notable that some politicians are strongly pro-gun-control, and also that some are strongly anit-gun-control. The existing article is not sufficiently encyclopedic and neutral. I would prefer that it be rewritten from scratch with more NPOV and possibly rename to Politicians favoring Gun Control to enhance neutrality. Georgewilliamherbert 21:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't see how any change to this could make it NPOV. The list is based on the premise that all politicians who in any way differ from the poster's views on guns should be grouped together. We have (according to the article as written) a politician who believes private citizens should not have guns at all, and one who says there should be some qualifications required for concealed carry. In this poster's POV, it seems, these are the same. Unsuitable for WP. Fan1967 03:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please separate the author/editor's POV and the article. If the editor who created it can't find his way to neutral POV then someone else can do the edits, but there's a difference between "the article can't be NPOV" and "this editor can't be NPOV". The breadth of the brush used is a POV issue, yes, but is repairable (along with the rest). It may be easier to nuke from orbit and rebuild elsewhere, but that may not be the best way forwards. Georgewilliamherbert 03:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete because it's a POV magnet, and currently little more than an unverifiable list of politicians who may or may not support gun control. Stifle 09:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is clearly a POV fork; whatever content can remain should be included at Gun politics in the United States. Mangojuice 15:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The list probably is (necessarily) POV, and in most cases, we shouldn't delete POV, just *edit* it; but here it's beyond hope: How can we tell who should and shouldn't be on the list? Moreover, it is ambiguous: "anti-gun"? are we talking pro-gun control or are we talking pacifist here, or are we saying people who think that certain people shouldn't have guns at certain times? If the latter, the list is probably coterminous with List of Politicians Carlossuarez46 02:28, 2 March 2006 (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.