Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting: Difference between revisions

Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (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)

This is borderline if not completely original research. It is a collection of gun control laws, commentary and reactions that occurred after the Sandy Hook shooting which in essence is original research. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in list of United States of America-related deletion discussions - and list of Firearms-related deletion discussions - and list of Law-related deletion discussions - and list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep Almost 50 sources, from many from the highest profile news sources in the world. Beyond the personal tragedies/ramifications (which are obviously infinite here), the gun control push after newtown was the major result of the incident. Its been discussed by many many many reliable sources, and every bit of content in that article is sourced to reliable sources linking the item in discussion directly to Newtown. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on a related article AFD, the nominator here !voted to merge, where this article is the most obvious merge target. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional delete - IF the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 article is kept. Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Threaded discussion and questions below. Lightbreather (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fuck em if they can't take a joke.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On the off chance that this nomination is not a joke, I note that the subject is one of the most notable I have ever come across in an AfD discussion. It is also exceptionally well sourced. All of which compels me to wonder; does the nom knows what WP:OR is? This appears to be an almost frivolous nomination. Or perhaps this nomination may be a byproduct of a peeing contest between some editors over this and another related AfD. Seriously. In either case, this is a waste of time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ad Orientem - Utter waste of time nominating. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep , actually a speedy keep. I was thinking of closing, but I've commented on these articles before. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are enough reliable sources. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 10:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

]====Threaded discussion==== Questions: 1. There are discussions about "gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" in

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and in

Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

... so why do we need a separate, "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" article?

I think because some troll told other editors to create it when they did not get their way [1]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Why was there never a "Gun control after the Cleveland Elementary School shooting (Stockton)" article? That shooting was what fired up the gun-control debate in the 1990s.

Wikipedia and the world wide web did not exist then. So it wouldn't have the sensationalized recentism of the other 2 in question.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. If we're going to keep this article, shouldn't we edit the two articles above so that they're briefer, more summarized, and quit developing the gun-control parts of those?

Sounds like a perfect time waster for you. Have at it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4. If we're going to keep this article, should we create a "Gun control after the [Cleveland Elementary School shooting (Stockton)" article?

Sounds like a perfect time waster for you. Have at it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions 2 and 4 are rhetorical questions worth pondering. Would such an article now be relevant? The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 article - also nominated for deletion - is narrow, specific, but most importantly, WP:SIGCOV in its own right. This one is broad, non-specific, and probably subject to recentism problems like becoming a bloated, rambling, disorganized WP:COATRACK mess. Lightbreather (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]