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


 * 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   keep. The clear consensus was to keep this article. There was also a discussion about the relationship of this article to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which was out of scope for this AfD. What material should go in each of those three articles should be discussed on the talk pages of those articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * 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)


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


 * Conditional delete - IF the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 article is kept. Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Threaded discussion and questions below. Lightbreather (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete fuck em if they can't take a joke.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes, this entire debacle is the result of a single editor who cannot accept consensus and has severe ownership issues. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Ad Orientem - Utter waste of time nominating. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  02:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Keep, there are enough reliable sources.   Rinfoli   { *Di§cu$ with me"# } 10:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY KEEP PER SNOW, It is the ORIGINAL ARTICLE that is a total mess, and should be deleted or merged. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * STRONG Delete - The existence of this article comes across as WP:UNDUE and a POV fork to me. 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 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. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Biased article implies that this incident is far worse than others, per Scalhotrod. Article is WP:UNDUE. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

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 --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's one way of looking at it. Or maybe a good-faith editor boldly moved/renamed AWB 2013 to "Gun control after..." without any real discussion while the "troll" (eye roll) who created it was out to lunch? Maybe. Also, maybe the "troll" (eye roll) knows better than try to discuss much of anything once a couple of pro-gun WP editors decide "its on." But let's leave that in the past. The question now is, is this article REALLY a good idea, or maybe one that wasn't discussed enough and is therefore maybe - just maybe - not a good idea on second thought? Lightbreather (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Then why ask these questions? You know damn well why the article was created.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lightbreather, your actions have once again create a HUGE waste of time for a lot of people. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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)
 * The federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994) article was created in 2002. That might have been titled "Gun control after the Cleveland Elementary School shooting"; it wasn't just about the federal ban. And the "Cleveland Elementary School shooting" article was created in 2005.  AWB 1994 could have been merged with it at that time, and the whole thing moved/renamed to make a broader, "Gun control after..." article. Lightbreather (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But the Cleveland Elementary School shooting (Stockton) article was created and it does include information about legislation that happened afterwards. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

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)
 * If we keep this article, I will. That would be in keeping with WP:SYNC. And if we keep this article, I hope other involved editors remember this. Lightbreather (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But it removes the subject matter from its context. We need MORE clarity on WP, not less. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

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)
 * It's a rhetorical question. I do not think we should create such an article... But maybe if we keep this one. But I hope we don't. Lightbreather (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, its a POV fork like this one. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

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)


 * In close to 10 years of editing wiki, this is the first time I have seen a threaded discussion on an AfD page.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Holy cow! I just clicked on the "Find sources: Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" link above, and on the "Find sources" link on the AfD discussion page for the AWB 2013 article. The difference between the quality and the quantity of hits is remarkable. "Gun control after..." 19 results; the top are yahoo.com polls and NRA-ILA articles. "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" 144,000 results; the top are .gov and mainstream news sources. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Gee willikers, if you type the sentence into google without Wikipedia on the end you get 1.6 million hits. Leapin lizards what's that about?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried typing and searching "gun control after the sandy hook elementary school shooting" instead of using the link up-top. I'll give you that gave a better search result - but I still think that this article will have the problems I mentioned above. Lightbreather (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.