Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia coverage of firearms

Add links
Source: 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. Also per

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

Wikipedia coverage of firearms

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

Wikipedia coverage of firearms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(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
    talk) 13:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on itself; see
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]
talk) 16:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
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
]
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]
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
    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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_coverage_of_firearms&oldid=874766040"