Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defensive gun use incidents (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jwinters (talk | contribs) at 21:23, 20 December 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

List of defensive gun use incidents

AfDs for this article:
List of defensive gun use incidents (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)

Completing nomination for an IP, I am neutral. His/her rationale (originally posted on the talk page) follows:


Mark Arsten (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • creator keep AFD was just completed 4 months ago. WP:NOTESAL The overall topic is discussed in numerous studies, books and articles, and far surpasses any notability bar. Incomplete lists are very common in wikipedia, we have a template specifically to address the issues inherent with them. That this is one such list is not a reason to delete. The criteria for inclusion in the list are neutral, and in close alignment with the criteria used by the various studies and books on the topic. that individual entries are not notable is again an explicitly intended use of lists on wikipedia per WP:CSC Gaijin42 (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List of non-notable news events that do not become notable by virtue of being glued together. I would also be opposed, in any case, to the existence of such a list without some semblance of a main article, although it is possible that one could be written. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The overall topic is notable, and per Wikipedia:CSC#Common_selection_criteria lists of non notable individual items are specifically a valid list selection criteria. A main article is certainly a good idea. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This list is restricted to ones that have recieved reliable coverage, which is a significantly smaller subset. Every entry here has at least one referene, many have more, and thoe ones that only have one ref, in many cases there were more refs available, but were not included due to trying not to WP:OVERLINK
If guncite is correct and 1 out of 100 of those cases receive coverage, we should have 100,000 entries on this list from the 20th century alone. I think we're going to need a bigger boat. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd also add that it seems to me to violate NPOV. 24.151.27.103 (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An article describing a notable POV does not itself violate NPOV. The POV issue is allowing List_of_murders,List_of_rampage_killers,List_of_familicides but not a single list showing the other side. from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content. also see WP:OUTRAGE Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NPOV or INDISCRIMINATE. Take your pick pbp 18:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
  • Keep This is exactly the sort of information Wikipedia is best for collecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.110.65 (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would be better to have an article on defensive gun use in general, which Wikipedia does not seem to have. Even the lowest estimates suggest tens of thousands of defensive gun use incidents per year in the United States alone, and other estimates suggest over 2 million such incidents per year in the United States. (And many more such incidents may occur in other countries, including some countries which have few editors of the English Wikipedia or media sources available online in English.) Furthermore, I don't know how we can determine which defensive gun use incidents are notable enough to justify maintaining a list of only the "notable" ones. For some of the incidents listed here, none of the participants' names are mentioned either here or in the cited source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The defensive gun use article is needed, agreed. I've done my best to include non-US incidents, but as gun laws generally more restrictive elsewhere, they are hard to find - plus ones that aren't in English are obviously much harder to find for US people. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that it would be better to have an article, so I was WP:BOLD and created one. I get the impression that some of the people who want to keep the list are doing so because they think the subject is a good idea, and therefore want to keep the list. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I have notified all of those that commented on the previous AFD of this discussion (except for pbp as he is already involved here), as well as those who have edited the article in question. I believe this does not violate WP:CANVASS as I notified all, regardless of they way they !voted, but I am putting it here just to avoid confusion etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gaijin invited me to comment here as a past editor of the article (I corrected a few typos with AWB). It appears to me a long list of miscellaneous, nonnotable events, covered under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The current form of the list also seems designed as a long pamphlet for gun rights. We don't have List of gun killings by criminals or List of accidental shootings of children by gunowners.
Defensive gun use is a widely discussed and debated topic, and it would be interesting to have an overview of the topic summarizing research and opinions from all sides. This list has been specifically designed to not be that overview, including only the most positive incidents and views: "Roberts was quoted as saying "It's not [politically correct] to run around in public wielding a handgun, but it's sometimes necessary," he said. "And [it's] our moral responsibility — not just [that of] the police — [to] defend other lives when we can". If kept, I suggest moving to simply List of gun use incidents to make sure Wikipedia is covering all varieties of gun use, rather than those that fit a particular legislative agenda.
As a side note, I'm also not fond of the strategy of giving an AfD a few days, and then when seeing that the vote is turning against it, making a transparent attempt to recruit new voters from presumed sympathetic pools. Unfortunately, it'll probably work here, but such is Wikipedia. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically invited quite a few people who voted delete the previous AFD, so I think your accusation is misplaced. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I bet the fact that there were more keeps than deletes didn't influence your thinking at all. But I don't want to get sidetracked here; I agree your actions were within policy. The main point I want to emphasize here is that it's silly to have a list of incidents like "Jane Gunowner scared off a masturbator with a handgun" while we would never allow a worldwide list of handgun murders. It's indiscriminate, and it's POV. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you have an AFD so soon, it makes sense to tell all those before about it. Wouldn't be fair otherwise. We don't want people to keep nominating the same article time and time again, until they get what they want, that gaming the system. Who is this IP address really? Seems odd for a new user to be acting this way. [1] Dream Focus 16:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The waiting two days until the first round of votes were in was what struck me--that and also notifying all past contributors to the article. Willing to agree to disagree, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator here. Since my anonymous edit seems to have caused concerned, I went through the effort of digging out my password and logging in. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is specific criteria for the list. The nominator claims it violates POV, when obviously it does not, and you can not delete list articles simply because they are incomplete. And there are references to the things listed, and some of the incidents even have their own Wikipedia article. This sort of thing does get ample coverage. Dream Focus 16:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Defensive gun use is a widely studied, although politically charged, topic and the literature reflects this. Creating a list of notable incidents on a notable topic does not violate any Wikipedia policies, and the re-nomination by an anon suggests a timing choice related to recent U.S. events. Having said that, I would break the list up differently, but that's a matter for regular editing, not a deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tone's always tricky online, so please read this question in a curious voice rather than an argumentative one: if this is ultimately kept, would the "Keep" votes here also support a referenced List of accidental shootings, List of armed robberies, and List of gun murders? What bothers me most here is that we're cataloguing one type of gun incident that's not more obviously notable than any other, save that it supports a specific POV; almost all murders, for example, will have received more coverage than a homeowner chasing off a burglar by firing a handgun (this list's first item). I'd be willing to give a start to the above lists if other editors wouldn't mind and wouldn't consider it WP:POINT; these seem like the kind of lists that once started, will rapidly be expanded by other editors. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those list would all be fine. You shouldn't try to delete something because something else doesn't exist. Instead why not go and create these other articles? Dream Focus 17:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the community consensus is that this is a useful level of detail for Wikipedia, even if I don't quite agree, I'll be glad to pitch in. I think it'd be better to hold off until this AfD is resolved, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic of "defensive gun use" is certainly notable, but this looks more like a small sublist of a very large group of "incidents" which should be dealt with in brief in an article on the topic, rather than as a list here. Collect (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • TCAICANTBCRA- Why does this need to be a dispute between delete and keep? Defensive gun use is a worthy topic to be discussed on this encyclopedia. No dispute about that. But the current content is embarrassing rubbish; why does it need to be a list of incidents without context or explanation? If I'm looking up defensive gun use I expectto find relevant information like the arguments for and against allowing guns for home protection and stuff like that. Not 50kb of "Mrs. Jones shot a deviant spying on her in the shower. Mr. Zhang mistook his son's snowman for an intruder and blew its carrot off." The current article is crap and needs to be changed right away. This implies keeping the concept of the article but deleteing the bulk of the current content. Reyk YO! 22:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
What does that acronym mean? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This is useful if beefed up. It may be the only list of verifiable uses of guns for self defence. It is at least useful to describe how guns are actually used for self defence. I would suggest that a section on estimates of defensive gun use, methodologies for estimating defensive gun use, and variability in the estimates of gun use for self defence would be helpful.StopYourBull (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Add studies on relevant estimates of DGU's, be patient, and watch the list grow. It will be at the top of a Google search in no time. This is important information that needs to be compiled somewhere. There is no POV support. That's like saying that a list of Daily Car Uses somehow has a POV in support of access to cars (every "honest" person knows they are only used by drunks to kill people). I think the OP is the one with a POV issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Chapin (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP As said this list may be the only list of verifiable uses of guns for self defense. After reading the list it is more clear to me now that there are occasions where self defense requires the use of a gun and that using a gun for self defense is at sometimes a necessary evil. 71.100.18.203 (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all "defensive gun use" incidents are not notable. This list in US focused, and if we included incidents globally it would become extremely long and uninteresting. Claritas § 11:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply. In the worst case, it should be rewritten as Defensive gun use. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. CallawayRox (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Still applies. CallawayRox (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how NOTCLEANUP is relevant here pbp 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete savable content, so we shouldn't be at AFD. CallawayRox (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I am a huge Second Amendment supporter, this list is more of a newspaper than an article and we know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. These are merely random events thown onto a list with a questionable inclusion criteria. A brief glance also shows some BLP concerns when we start making statements like "John Doe broke into a house and Steve Homeowner used a firearm...." Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for inclusion closely match the criteria used by the various studies of defensive gun use (See the prior AFD for specific quotes from the studies to back this up). If consensus does say that the sourced name mentions are a BLP issue, that is a simple cleanup, and not delete-worthy. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the non-notable people's names aren't really that relevant, wouldn't it be more prudent for you to simply remove them all, rather than add that to the list of reasons why this article should be deleted? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely see the argument. I had been including them for two reasons - 1) so searches on those names might link to us (Which in retrospect I do admin could cause BLP issues) 2) So that readers already at the article would have some search terms for use for finding additional sources Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having difficulty believing that 95% of those names are likely search terms. As for the additinal source claim: If it is in the article, it should already have a source. Said source will contain the names if people want to search further. Everything doesn't belong in the article.Niteshift36 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note some !voters using all-caps for "KEEP" appear to have few actual Wikipedia edits, and appear here quite oddly indeed. Collect (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that everyone says this, but I would like to state for the record that I have NOT WP:CANVASSED as implied by Collect, and directly accused by PBP. I notified the editors of the article, and of the previous AFD and said so on this very page. I did not make any posts or requests at any other location. I will also notice that this pendulum swings both ways, and the nominator as well as several of the delete votes are anonymous IPs with not much edit history. I think in both cases the result is the increased scrutiny of gun related topics in the context of the Newtown school tragedy. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One IP address said delete, one IP address said keep, and then two other "keeps" had few edits, one of them posting in and about gun related topics starting back in August though, so I doubt he'd be someone's puppet. [2] Dream Focus 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral changed to userfy allow development of either a non-list article, or a list article with a manageable criteria - I have some serious practical concerns about how you keep a list like this balanced, not indiscriminate, and together; many of the incidents are notable only in aggreggate, not as individual events. However, the NPOV claims are misplaced. I would prefer a merge but we don't have anything on this topic it would appear (I haven't found anything on point). Defensive firearm use or something similar would be a good umbrella topic. The criteria needs to be tightened and the focus changed. We don't have a list for run-of-the-mill crimes because any list like that would always be not only incomplete, but not even a shadow of complete. This criteria is similar as it stands now. There is a place for a list similar to this, but the current format bothers me enough to change to a neutral stance. Shadowjams (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed that many (if not most) of the incidents would fail GNG on their own. However, this situation is explicitly contemplated by the list MOS : [Wikipedia:CSC#Common_selection_criteria]]. Do you have any narrowing criteria you think should be added? I can think of many that would probably make the article more interesting, but they would also tend to introduce more POV over what is a legitimate defensive use. Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles Gaijin42 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that entries fail GNG, which is of course what lists are sometimes good at fixing, but it's that just as a list of crimes with a firearm (or whatever criteria), no practical wikilist could come close to being even a representative list. For instance, the robbery criteria alone is something that's regularly in the papers, and that's just from what I hear in my local area. Of course if you removed that specific criteria, then it becomes an odd list though. Nationwide, over the 100 year+ span the list already considers, I can't imagine how a list like this could even be representative. Perhaps I'm overestimating the number of incidents this would apply to, and I'm aware it need not be comprenhensive, but it at least needs to give some sense of scale. That's my main concern, and why I think an article addressing the topic, rather than a list, is the way to go.
A list limited to mass murder incidents, for instance, would be much more manageable. A list limited to murders might be possible too, but I suspect even that may be overly ambitious. Shadowjams (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you either misread the criteria or are making an argument where you missed a step in your argument. This is not an article about crimes, but an article about where people defended themselves from crimes. Are you saying the list should be limited to only defensive incidents where they defended themselves from murder? That seems a tough article, as if they were successful it would not actually be a murder, and if they were not, then they didn't manage to defend themselves at all? Or are you just comparing this article to a hypothetical "list of murders" article? If the later, certainly in both cases we would only be able to document a subset of incidents (even a subset of well referenced incidents). However I personally see a value difference in the two articles (which is a POV I suppose), in that nobody denies the existence of murder and that incidents happen quite often - but many people are not aware of or ignore the concept of DGU, and therefore documenting and discussing them (of course in an NPOV manner) is a valuable effort. I certainly admit that that is a POV, but I do not think we have any policy which says articles which neutrally present a POV are disallowed (and in fact we have policies to the contrary) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Gaijin you have completely misread my comment. No, i'm not confused about your criteria, or the purpose of the article. My point is that your criteria encompasses so many incidents the list will never be representative. I make an analogy to a hypothetical List of crimes committed with firearms, which would be equally unmanageable. And before you say that we don't need "completeness" or that AfD is not cleanup, I'm aware of both of those points. It's not completeness we need, but a list that has 5% of the potential entries (and I fear this would always have far less) is problematic.
I suggest a more limited criteria as a solution. This would address most of my issues. Limiting the list to a homicide criteria is one option. And your concern about inchoate offenses is silly, you should easily understand this would include those as well (current criteria doesn't take attempts into account, but would clearly cover them as well; that seems quite obvious to me).
The tldr version is, the list criteria lends itself to such an expansive number of entries that are so common even cursory representative coverage would be unmanageable. Shadowjams (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how would one know what intended (or incidental) crime would have occurred had the DGU not happened? In any robbery/break in murder is a possible result? Are you saying we should limit the list to only cases where someone was sucessfully greivously assaulted/killed and then a later DGu occurred limiting it? Or where a credible death threat was made? I could see restricting to serious assault, murder etc (definitely exclude the "masturbate" incident for example, but i think any break in where a threat was made, or where the perp was armed would be viable too. Also, I think any incident involving a child, or elderly person as the gun user is more notable, as even an unarmed assailant is a significant threat to them. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed criteria change : Add a criteria that one of the following must be included : 1) Rape, assault, murder, or credible threat (per RS?) thereof. OR 2) any crime involving armed perp 3) or child (<18) or senior (>65). This would exclude the masturbation event, and simple breaking and entering incidents where an unarmed (or not known to be armed) perp was shot/fled/etc without engaging the user (unless a child/senior). Gaijin42 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're adding to the WP:OR criteria now? How about incidents that occurred on a weekday and involved a gun whose average retail price is under $250 (before taxes)? It seems you are trying to fix the OR problem with more OR. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every element (of any list) does not need to be included. It is not OR to say "We are filtering the incident we choose to display", the same as we filter which quotes from notable people we choose to include, which pictures we choose to display, etc. As long as that filtering is done in a neutral way. If it makes you feel better, we can say this is "forming consensus on editorial discretion" rather than a formal change of the criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are creating the topic out of thin air. We can create countless meaningless "List of..." articles this way: List of lollipop flavors, List of left handed people born on Wednesdays, List of prices charged by barbers in Chicago on March 17, 1984, etc. The topic is not "defensive gun use incidents", the topic is "defensive gun use incidents where the gun user was not a cop or member of the military and was not convicted of a crime for using the gun to ... whatever". The inclusion criteria -- a.k.a. the "topic" of this list -- is currently something a Wikipedia editor (or group of editors) dreamed up. It cannot possibly be notable. Additionally, the list is alleged to be huge, supposedly generating thousands of possible candidates each year in the U.S. alone. That this is limited by the wishy-washy "where reliable sources can verify the basic facts of the incident" criterion (basically: the facts must be verifiable...). Getting back to a similar article that should exist if this one does: There are roughly 300 gun homicides in Philadelphia each year. All of them are detailed in the Philadelphia Inquirer (with an annual article linking to each one on a handy-dandy map). That article will add thousands of new entries each year, without question. That (as is alleged here) most of the possible members of this OR category are unreported brings us back to a guess, discussed above: If 1% of them are reported, that's 1,000 new entries each year. 100,000 from the U.S. and 20th century alone. Heck, let's start an exhaustive list of the residents of some smallish town somewhere. We can find a reliable source, the criteria wouldn't be OR (unlike this one) and the list would be just as "encyclopedic" as this one. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom rationale is nonsense. That the list is not complete is a very silly deletion rationale, also AfD is not for cleanup. The topic the list is about is clearly notable, entries are referenced and there are well defined inclusion criteria. All in all not only a list compliant to policies, but a good one at that. --Cyclopiatalk 21:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This needs much more expansion. I have added an 1853 event where a slave attacking an overseer was killed in self-defense, and an 1928 event, where a husband killed his wife's lover in self defense when he walking in on the wife and the lover. There are many many incidents like this that should be added to this article. The number of times slave owners were saved from violent acts by defensive gun use alone are immense! I am very concerned that article as it now is very narrow, just trying to include defensive gun use situations under 2012 standard of morality. The fact is that defensive gun use to enforce legal acts now thought horrible goes back to the invention of firearms, and should not be omitted.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of the least compelling arguments from the "keep" side is "this might be the only list of its kind". That's the definition of original research, which is what Wikipedia is not. It's not our job to compile the first ever list of defensive gun incidents. Let alone a list that is impossible (not hard -- literally impossible) to populate with any verifiability and accuracy. Just look at the mess of the inclusion criteria. "Yes this, except when it's that, except when this or that." Particularly the part about how we have to go into the legal system to decide whether an act of gun violence was an act of self-defense, or an act of murder. It's as impossible to maintain as "list of motor vehicle accidents" or "list of people who have slipped and fallen on icy sidewalks". This AFD has become a magnet for canvassing by the pro-gun lobby. But so I'm not accused of being a shill for the other side, I will also add this: there IS an encyclopedic topic to be made about defensive gun use, and the number of lives saved by defense. But the way to do that is to write an article with statistics, instead of trying to make it into a list of individual anecdotes. For a phenomenon of this frequency, statistical data would be the only accurate way to represent it. Anecdotes are highly prone to undue weight (in favor or opposed). So in the alternative to deletion, I would support a wholesale rewrite. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking for modification of inclusion criteria. Which is good, but it's not a deletion ratonale: AfD is not cleanup; what you ask can be dealt with editing, not deletion, thus it is an invalid rationale, per deletion policy. --Cyclopiatalk 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If 2 possible people is "A magnet for canvassing by the pro-gun lobby", that's got to be about the weakest lobby in the universe. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question how incomplete of a list is this? Right now, there are about 30 entries for 2012. If this was mostly a complete list, as per the current criteria, would there be 300? 3,000? 300,000? I would say that if there were only 300, it might be a stretch to maintain, but my impression is that is much more likely to 300,000 than 300. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Estimates of DGU (depending on definition and survey method) vary from between tens of thousands, to many hundreds of thousands, however under no circumstance would the list be able to include even a small percentage; because only a small percentage of those are reported on, and therefore WP:VERIFIABLE. The number that is reported on is orders of magnitude smaller (by my own count, or that of websites which are compiling similar lists), and serves as a first-level notability filter. Reported on is in the low hundreds with 0-5 per week maybe and of those some do not pass our current criteria, and less would bass the proposed criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JClement's sound analysis, a very poor deletion rationale, being an incomplete list is not a reason for deleting anything, WP has no deadline and the article's subject is obviously notable, sourcable and expandable. Cavarrone (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As said below, it has less than 100 entries right now. It is estimated there are 10s of thousands of such incidents in the U.S. each year. This list is already trying to cover as far back as the early 1900s. Even if those numbers are limited to those reported on, we're talking hundreds of listings per year. Incomplete is not the reason; completely unmanageable is. Shadowjams (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, however when and if the list will became too long we could spin out under more specific criteria. Or we can establish, just now, more strict inclusion criteria. But, per se, ITSTOOLONG is not a valid reason to delete a notable topic. Cavarrone (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a random selection of incidents. Next: List of gun suicides, List of automobile accidents, List of people interviewed for person on the street segments in local news, etc. Yes, we have List of people from New York City and such, but they are not a random selection of those people, they are lists of the notable (blue linked) people. This list has an extensive set of criteria for inclusion that seem to have been created by the editor. For instance: why exclude illegal guns used for self-defense? Based on the criteria outlined, the article title should be something along the lines of [[List of defensive gun use incidents by civilians excluding police, military or paid armed security while acting in the line of duty, defensive uses during the commission of a crime, illegally owned guns, voluntary participants in violence but possibly including cases where the user claimed self-defense and charges were filed but later dropped]]. Given that the mirror image of this coat rack would also seem to be notable, we would likely have to create List of offensive gun use incidents, a list that would grow by thousands annually (assuming most murders hit the newspapers). Pointless. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking for modification of inclusion criteria. Which is good, but it's not a deletion ratonale: AfD is not cleanup; what you ask can be dealt with editing, not deletion, thus it is an invalid rationale, per deletion policy. --Cyclopiatalk 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify. I am not asking for modification of the inclusion criteria, I am saying there is no possible set of inclusion criteria that is not original research and does not generate a random selection of trivial news items. That we can generate a set of inclusion criteria for List of rainy Mondays in London does not imply we should. (That would be another random selection of trivial news items of no value. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are misquoting the criteria. There is no restriction in the criteria of illegal guns used for self defense. the only restriction in that vein is that criminals in the act of ocmmiting a crime should not be included, which is a major component of most Castle laws Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is moot. The criteria are still OR. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find it hard to believe that this is a true representative list as it shows no case where the gun owner shot a bystander by accident. It is also prejudicial as it does not show the events where there was a gun owner present who couldn't do anything without hitting a bystander. This only shows GDU in a 100% positive light and is obviously created for an agenda. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 07:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking for reasonable cleanup. AfD is not cleanup however: what you ask can be dealt with editing, not deletion, thus it is an invalid rationale, per deletion policy. --Cyclopiatalk 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not include accidental shootings, because that is a different topic. We also don't include cases of consensual relationships in the list of rapes. Is that a POV issue? An individual article does not need to represent all facets of a topic, if it is about a specific facet. The hypothetical example you propose is a worthy topic on its own though. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, assuming the existence of a list of rapes, we absolutely would include cases of "consensual relationships" (because if one doesn't consent to sex, it's still rape, even if one is married or in a relationship). What we wouldn't include = instances of consensual sex. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it's about the basic definition of the list inclusion criteria. Take another look at what LegoTech is saying: that many instances of gun use which were intended for the defense of self or another, and which therefore are "defensive gun use incidents," didn't have the intended result of deterring an attacker while keeping non-attackers safe. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm staying with delete. Original research as the choice was made to include off duty cops as if they put their training and experience in their locker along with the uniform. Its a random set of incidents that match the point the creator is trying to prove. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The police exclusion is not WP:OR if you read the criteria from the studies I copied below, they specifically exclude "Police work". I reworded the criteria to be clear as they meant (based on other content of those studies) but it is most definitely NOT wp:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This feels like a deletion that is politically motivated. I'm pro gun control, but this article is very relevant. This is a topic that is discussed "in numerous studies, books and articles, and far surpasses any notability bar. Incomplete lists areery common in wikipedia, we have a template specifically to address the issues inherent with them." I agree completely with a previous contributor on this issue of deletion. Johnandrus (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you there seems to be some political motivation in some rare cases, but I'm a little confused as to why. More to the point, the number of cases that fit on here is enormous. The low end estimates of defensive gun uses is over 50,000. The high end estimates are much more. That's per year, and that's just in the U.S. Even if we only list those reported in the paper, that's easily in the hundreds each year, and this list is going back to the turn of the century (the last one) already! The current criteria in this article means such a list is completely unmanageable. Shadowjams (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • STRONG KEEP though i'm known as a left-winger and i'm not at all ashamed of that, i can't condone wiping away this article even though i'd prefer (just politically and personally) that it weren't here. we must at least act like WP actually is neutral. the deletion request SO reeks of POV that even i must oppose it. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you want to keep the article because you feel the nomination was not in good faith? You've provided no evidence of that. Please address the issues raised in the nomination. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment however, it is likely that whatever anyone says, this article will be deleted --just like that one about Forward being a historical name for socialist-associated media, which it is, being deleted as soon as president obama picked it as his 2012 campaign slogan. (of course to me there is nothing dishonorable about using a historically socialist slogan --nothing to be ashamed of!) as soon as POV obama-defenders thought it might look bad for obama to be socialist associated [why?] they got it deleted. this article will go the same way. and i will be glad --but also slightly worried that we really are making a mockery of the supposedly 'neutral' stance we supposedly take, and that we might thus someday lose some credibility. of course we editors are mostly educated, civilized, NOT right-wing knuckle-dragging types and sometimes our preferences show. of course. but we must try harder to LOOK objective. my gut tell sme that killing-off this article would do too much too soon to make us look like the enlightened partisans that most of us are. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
This is off-topic and has no place here. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ah no it isn't, mr/s i-have-a-PhD-and-want-all-to-know-it. if it weren't on the topic, i wouldn't have added it here. your quibble reeks of POV. and believe me, as a really POV person at times, i know POV when i see it. we probably agree on a lot of things, since i'm (according to critics) really obviously way out in left field. fine. i'm not going to repeat my reasons for being nervous about deleting this. they're above for all to see. cheers.Cramyourspam (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cramyourspam, please keep civil. --Cyclopiatalk 13:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to me that it would be very desirable to have some sources that address the topic of listing past defensive gun use as a whole, rather than compiling a list of one-off news reports. As it currently stands, I think the article is verging on WP:SYN, and that is an issue that needs addressing. I do not think the "criteria" section below is an adequate remedy, since it suggests that Wikipedia editors will be judging which news reports to include based on criteria studies of defensive gun use in various—well, that's practically the definition of synthesis. (What would we say: "This incident would be considered a defensive use based on the criteria in blah, but not blah"?!) If we can find reliable secondary sources that list defensive uses of guns in the past, then we can cite those and reference the primary source literature (news reports). If we can't, then the article should probably be deleted. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. Addressing the nominator's view that the article is POV, I would argue it is more POV to delete the article. The absence of the article would seem to imply a lack of defensive uses for guns. -- Jwinters | Talk 21:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

This is copied from the prior AFD. These are the quotes from several of the studies used as sources in the article thus far, and the criteria used by those studies. The studies' criteria closly match the criteria for inclusion used by the article.

*comment regarding criteria (as well as showing notability of the overall list topic) (copied on article talk) There have been several US and international studies which have done research into the occurence of defensive gun use. These various studies have used various methodologies and slightly different criteria to measure DGUs, here is a brief summary of what they measured, which can be used to judge the appropriateness of the criteria for inclusion in this article, and possible changes.

    • From http://www.saf.org/journal/11/mauserfinal.htm (reprint of Armed Self Defense: The Canadian Case, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol 24, No 5, pp 393-406, Copyright (1996)
      • Canadian Facts, 1995 (Note, Canada, not US) : Within the past five years, have you yourself, or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-rotection, or for protection of property at home, at work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard.” If the respondent nswered, “yes,” he or she was then asked, “Was this to protect against an animal or a person (or both).”
      • Center for Social and Urban Research (CSUR) 1995, at the University of Pittsburgh, surveying both US and CANADA : Aside from military service or police work, in the past five years, have you yourself, or a member of your household, used a gun for self-protection, or for protection of property at home, at work, or elsewhere, even if it wasn’t fired?” If the respondent answered, “yes,” he or she was then asked, “Was this to protect against an animal or a person (or both).
    • from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=103 (National Academies Press)
      • NCVS (National Crime Vicimimisation Study, (administered by US Census Beurau) (see also http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/NCVS/) : To elicit defensive gun use incidents, the survey first assesses whether the respondent has been the victim of particular classes of crime—rape, assault, burglary, personal and household larceny, or car theft—during the past six months, and then asks several follow-up questions about self-defense. In particular, victims are asked:Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?Did you do anything (else) with the idea of protecting yourself or your property while the incident was going on? Responses to these follow-up probes are coded into a number of categories, including whether the respondent attacked or threatened the offender with a gun.
      • National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994 : The survey, which focused on firearms use, first assessed whether the respondent used a gun defensively during the past five years, and then asked details about the incident. In particular, respondents were first asked:Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard.
    • Excellent meta-study comparing many of the above studies and several others, http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JQC-CookLudwig-DefensiveGunUses-1998.pdf
      • NSPOF (National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms, US DOJ) : Within the past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even if it was not fired,to protect yourself or someone else, or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Respondents who reported a DGU experience are then asked 30 additional questions concerning the most recent such experience. Topics covered include whether the use was against an animal or a human, the relationship between the respondent and the perpetrator, the location of the incident, the crime involved, whether the perpetrator was armed, and what the respondent did with the firearm in the incident

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria that you have developed for the list may be based on the above research, but it isn't close to being identical. This non-trivial criteria for inclusion is what makes it WP:OR. Developing the criteria further to keep the list from being huge just marches further along the OR path. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
how is it OR to develop criteria to keep a list from being huge? By your logic, we should then delete Line of Succession to the British Throne -- Jwinters | Talk 21:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Limiting the list by date might be appropriate. It could be done by decade, 5 or 1 year periods. Ellipsoid1 (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_defensive_gun_use_incidents_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=529015491"