Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia coverage of firearms

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. Also per WP:G7. Sandstein 12:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia coverage of firearms[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whilst it may be sourced this looks like editorializing. As well as a veiled attack page on WikiProject Firearms. Blatant soapboxing Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One in the eye for the US gun lobby and our clearly NRA influenced arms in Merkia coverage. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets WP:GNG with several independent articles in various newspapers. There are additional sources that I did not use, such as a report by the Action on Armed Violence discussing the "criminal use" section of WP:Firearms. The AOAV does research into gun violence and civilians; its reports have been used by independent media, such as Vice News. The organization has collaborated with the Harvard Law School, therefore it can probably be considered an RS. It's true that the reporting on this has been critical, but I dispute the idea that this is an attack page. Catrìona (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to delete after reconsideration of the sources. Although sufficient in-depth coverage does exist to write a non-stub article, the coverage focuses narrowly on a particular controversy such that it is not possible to write a NPOV article with the existing sources. I categorically reject the allegations that this was an attack article. It was a good-faith effort to cover a controversy that excited significant media attention, rather than defame any particular editors or groups of editors. In fact, I have never been involved in firearms editing before and have never interacted with most of the editors who were quoted in news reports. I blanked the page so it will be speedily deleted soon. Catrìona (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is entirely circular and will just be a running commentary. Wikipedia mirroring itself via filtration through a select few press organizations. Cesdeva ^(talk) 13:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on itself; see Category:Wikipedia. The question is does the article follow Wikipedia notability and content policies? Your !vote doesn't address that. Catrìona (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is more than sufficient and within the scope of the AfD process. The pages within the category you supplied, bear limited resemblance to the article in question. Even if they did, it wouldn't void my reasoning. The circular nature of the sources and writing (WP, RS, WP) means that there would be strong inherent bias, easily inserted from the Wikipedia end and more than enough to question the validity of such an article. Cesdeva ^(talk) 19:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Additionally, the discussion doesn't meet WP:GNG. The articles aren't independent. Three of the sources just refer back to the original Verge article as their only source. Any editor willing to do the leg work will see that article is full of factual errors because the author didn't bother to follow the related talk page discussions. But I think the concerns regarding soapbox and editorializing (as well as attacking active editors) are all legitimate. Springee (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Springee Some of the articles refer to each other, but that doesn't mean that they aren't contributing original reporting. For example, the Haaretz article refers to the Verge article but the writer also did his own investigation: "The follow-up on the work conducted by The Verge revealed that these editors were not focused solely on the articles about the AR-15, but also worked across a web of entries pertaining to guns and rifles in general, and even cultural staples of the gung-ho gun culture." Detailed, in-depth coverage from multiple sources satisfies WP:GNG. In addition, the report mentioned above makes no mention of the Verge article or any other media coverage. As stated on the talk page of the article, I think it would be difficult to incorporate information from talk pages without violating WP:NOR. Catrìona (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt What sort of fresh recursive nonsense is this? Seems more like somebody's attempt at an essay than an appropriate article for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223: I've already fixed a number of issues raised by another user. Perhaps you'd like to give specific feedback so that the article could be improved? Catrìona (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By being deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article about wikipedia in the news seems like recursive WP:NOTNEWS to me. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - A blatant WP:NPOV violation, in addition to problems raised by other editors in this discussion. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this article violates NPOV. It's all very well quoting policy, but you need to explain how this violates that policy. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ideological bias on Wikipedia. The issue of technical emphasis versus environmental consequences is much larger than firearms and may be inappropriately dispersed and duplicated if we have separate articles on each aspect. The existing text is narrowly focused on individual firearms ownership while ignoring the consequences of firearms use by military, police, and corporate security personnel. Similar analogies apply for use of motor vehicles including aircraft, for pest control and pharmaceutical chemicals, and potentially for monetary practices and resource ownership, extraction, and use. Thewellman (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think your response ought to be based on Wiki Policy. Your obfuscation above is meaningless. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea, the sources may be useful for something in the "Claims of bias" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly self-referential article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per above comments.--RAF910 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for my reasons states at the talk page....oh wait, the talk page was deleted.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly speedy-delete WP:G10 as an attack page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Admin question: Since the author has voted to delete, isn't this essentially a G7? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's worth noting that the likelihood of RAF910 and I ever agreeing about anything is so minute that when we do it should give cause for pause. In this case, even though we were on opposite sides of the conflict referenced in this article I think we can agree in the strongest terms that it's not a matter of encyclopedic record. And I'd also concur with Niteshift36 that this looks like a G7 at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or "delet this", if this involves deletion and guns on the Internet): Content would be good as part of a larger thing on systematic biases on Wikipedia, but on its own feels too forgettable in the long term. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:47, 19 December 2018 (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.