- Gun_control_after_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Clear policy based reasons were provided to justify deleting this article. The closing admin decided that "The three people arguing for deletion did indeed make cogent, policy-based arguments, but were still a numerically small enough minority that I felt declaring a keep consensus was the correct thing to do. ". The 6 people who argued to keep the article discuss the extensive souring of the article. The sourcing of the article is not an issue, the issue was that it was a POV article comprised of a collection of news articles and laws (that in all honestly could be considered OR, the collection of a large number of articles is almost a quasi meta-analysis) to discuss reactions and laws after a major event. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 14:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was actually renominated (outside of process) and the second nominator gives a better, more informed rationale: "The existence of this article screams of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM and is a POV fork. Yes, its well sourced as most of its content is rehashed from other articles. In fact everything in it is carefully selected content. There have been other (just as horrific) events that have generated public outcry and debate, but we do not have separate articles on their "after effects" with regard to any particular political movement. The articles themselves include the information along with related articles. If this were a List article, I would venture to say that few would think twice about its deletion, and that is essentially what this article is with some Editorial Opinion thrown in.". Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 14:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, I took a look at the sources and the sources directly state "calls" at the least for gun control. If I recall there was more coverage for this shooting in relations to gun control than others due to the perpetrator, victims, and location. The close to keep was definitely proper as well. Since RS is not an issue and we are looking at undue, the best way to prove this is to bring multiple sources stating that legislation is common after shootings and that the coverage received in this particular case is no greater than others. This was not successfully argued in the prior AfD. Valoem talk contrib 16:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Valoem (and others watching), although school shootings date back to the 1700's, as far as contemporary events are concerned, the 1989 Cleveland School shooting in Stockton, CA received a substantial amount of (pre-internet) media attention and is cited by many (gun control and gun rights proponents) as a watershed moment that lead to firearm (specifically assault rifle and assault weapon) legislation. High profile shooting incidents that have generated further debate or that are credited with creation of legislation are not limited to schools. In addition to the events at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech University, the Aurora, Colorado and Washington Naval Yard shooting incident articles have content related to the "aftermath" regarding gun politics or legislation. To allow this article to remain gives it WP:UNDUE emphasis over every other shooting incident regardless of where it happened or the ages or numbers of the victims. Out of tragically over 250 school shootings in the U.S. in the last 200 years, there is no Wikipedia policy I am aware of that supports this level of priority or preferential treatment. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly how is it "WP:GNG by a huge margin on its own and a logical WP:SPLIT" versus every other shooting incident with or without an article? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST There are numerous secondary sources discussing the gun control efforts and proposals in the wake of Sandy hook, and those sources directly link the proposals to the event (in addition to the proposers doing it directly as well). Everyone on all sides of the political spectrum should agree to that obvious fact, regardless of one's opinions as to the wisdom of the proposals, or one's opinion about their respective successes and failures. Maybe those other events did not evoke similar levels of political activity. Perhaps they did and it was not covered in RS as well. Perhaps it is in fact covered as well, but nobody has put together an article. In any case, it doesn't matter, as there is no policy requiring parity. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and that's a convenient way to weasel word around addressing WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM, but still does not justify the existence of this article and the preferential treatment that one event is being given. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:UNDUE versus every other shooting incident, WP:RECENTISM, that its POV fork created from redundant material, and by the admission of the author on its Talk page that the subject is vague enough that they are unsure of the period of time it should cover. I guess we wait until another horrific incident occurs and then start Gun control after ''fill in name of mass shooting here''. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - content management is a headcount heavy process, and this is management, not a deletion question. The parent article is big enough that a daughter is sensible. Although there are claims that policy supports deletion, that appears to be false - WP:UNDUE is perhaps usable to support a keep position (to avoid an undue emphasis in Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting), but it's farcical to suggest it might support a deletion position. As for the claim it's a POVFORK, that's asserted but not shown, and I certainly can't ascertain the POV of the writer(s) by reading the article, so I have to conclude the appeals to POVFORK are wholly invalid as well. Keep has the headcount, and the policy (most WP:N, which is a big hill to climb against), while delete is numerically inferior and has only WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a deletion argument. Pretty clear-cut. WilyD 09:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I differ from WilyD on a number of points. I think the distinction between deletion questions and content management questions is spurious: this was at AfD, so it's a deletion question. I think that there are Wikipedia rules that do support deletion, and the "delete" side has explained them quite clearly; and I don't see the relevance of the headcount. However, I still think we should endorse the decision.
The "delete" side's case is that because we have rules, they should be enforced in this case. That's erroneous. Wikipedia policy is and has always been that rules aren't enforced blindly. Per policy, rules are only enforced in any specific case if it's in the encyclopaedia's best interests to enforce them in that case. Where users disagree about whether to apply the rules, we have a discussion and try to reach a consensus. In this case consensus was not reached, so the closer had to follow the deletion guidelines for administrators. Because of this, the close I would have preferred is "no consensus to delete". At DRV we don't normally overturn a "keep" to a "no consensus", though.—S Marshall T/C 10:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I closed the AfD. I just wanted to respond to the keep vs. no consensus point raised by S Marshall (talk · contribs). I figure the big decision in an AfD is delete vs don't delete. The line between "clear consensus to keep" and "no consensus" doesn't excite me as much, so I don't put as much effort into making sure I get that right. In this case, re-reading the AfD just now, I could have gone either way (i.e. keep or nc), but I don't see any possible way this could have added up to a delete. I should point out that I completely discounted the comment by Mike Searson (talk · contribs) as being totally inappropriate and disruptive. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I take it the article topic is "a series of gun laws proposed in the United States at the federal and state levels after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" (in the first sentence). If so I am not clear what it is a POV fork of. And anyway, as WilyD asks, what is the POV? Where is this explained by those objecting? The article may duplicate material in other articles but that is an editorial, not a policy, issue. WP:UNDUE explicitly refers to balance within an article. There has never been any coherent attempt to achieve balance across articles (WP as a whole is hugely biased towards material published since 1990, using sources in English, and on topics of interest to human beings). WP:OR? Editors of any decently written article will have quite properly undertaken a "meta-analysis" of what relevant sources exist and what ideas and facts from them can be usefully reported. What we are pleased to call OR is including statements not in such sources or in combining statements so as to "advance a new position". I do not see the topic as being unusually recent. I think the argument is not between those who want to uphold policy and those who don't. It is between people with different interpretations of how policy should apply. If the material here excessively overlaps that elsewhere, or if there are other topics that should be covered elsewhere, those are editorial matters. The consensus at AFD was to keep and the close was correct. Thincat (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as an accurate evaluation of the deletion discussion. The argument that the selection and structuring of article content amounts to original research pretty much applies to every article, and is based on a fundamental misconception. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:UNDUE.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give any reasoning as to how WP:UNDUE, which explains how the prevalence of viewpoints within an article need to be balanced by the prevalence of those viewpoints among reliable sources could conceivably be a reason to delete this article? WilyD 17:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not the prevalence of viewpoints within the article, its the entire article that is problematic. In roughly the last 50 years, there have been several high profile assassinations and attempts (including U.S. Presidents) in addition to other (just as horrific) shooting incidents around the U.S. The existence of this article places an WP:UNDUE emphasis on the Sandy Hook School shooting with regard to a political movement. Furthermore, by the article authors own admission above, "1. There are already three articles that discuss this material: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Reactions, Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Gun_control, and (to some degree) Assault weapons ban. 2. Even though it was the impetus behind the federal AWB of 1994 and three state assault weapons bans, the Cleveland Elementary School shooting (Stockton) never resulted in a "Gun control after the Cleveland Elementary School shooting."" It is essentially the Wikipedia defacto guideline that this kind of material be included in the main article about its associated incident and not in a separate one. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably better as NC and I'd have !voted for a merge or delete as I don't think this is an appropriate topic for an article (rather it should be a part of the parent). But weak endorse (only weak because NC would have been a better reading of the discussion IMO). Hobit (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
