Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun violence in the United States by state


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Gun violence in the United States by state

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research. No Reliable sources. Links go to primary sources, not to secondary. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 09:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 09:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 09:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 09:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The lack of reliable sources right now is not a problem, since those stats would likely be found on official websites. However, piecing together various statistics is doomed to be synthesis. It seems to imply, for instance, that gun ownership percentages or population density are relevant factors to explain crime rates - which they may or may not be, but we need a reference for that, otherwise I might just as well add a column "average summer temperature".
 * I would add this is a shame, because the list is well-formatted and categorized and all that. But still. Tigraan (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting we delete an article consisting entirely of a table whose data factuality you're not contesting because it might imply something? (I find the synthesis argument and weather analogy frankly ridiculous; crime rate statistics are commonly presented in a per-year format without any great concern over whether or not there are more shootings on Saturday nights than Tuesday mornings.) Pax 07:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You understand me correctly. A list of recessions under Republican presidents in the United States would obviously be POV, even if the title and the content would be factual and easily sourced (adding the same list for Democrat presidents in a separate article does not make it NPOV, it just makes two POV articles; a list of recessions in the US could be NPOV, though).
 * As for the "weather" (temperature) argument, you possibly misunderstood me. Temperature bears little to no causation to gun violence, I am not disputing that (unlike the hour of the day, but as you pointed out we do not care). Nonetheless, it could be correlated (see kitchen sink regression), and adding it to the list is akin to making the claim that "numbers speak by themselves". This claim is not going to fool anyone in the case of temperature, but for population density?
 * I do think all factors listed here, including pop. density, are causally relevant, but I would very much like to see a source for that. Yes, I call WP:SYNTH on uniting two stats that no external source compares. This is by no way routine calculation which is meant for arithmetic operations (calculating the age of someone, computing the total sales for a firm from a breakdown by country, etc.). I think a sentence such as "At the federal level, sampling by state, gun murder rate is positively correlated with gun ownership with R squared 0.7 and slope 15/1000" would however fall into routine calculation, even if this involves some statistical background, provided someone put together murder rates and gun ownership before us (and it's a safe bet someone did).
 * As soon as you come up with a source that discusses the relationship between the variables that are listed here, I will be happy to change my !vote. Tigraan (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why sources should be sought to support "relationships" which are neither listed nor implied in the article in the first place. (That would lead to WP:Coatracked original research, edit wars and all those other horrible things we seek to avoid. --No; a nice list without embellishment is the way to go.) Pax 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If no relationship whatsoever is to be found even implicitly between the various columns of the list, why is it even here? That would be completely against WP:INDISCRIMINATE to have the stats of X vs. Y for every pair of X and Y no matter how relevant they are together (or, oppositely, to have one single huge table of every stat that could be found for every state). I am not suggesting "embellishment" of the list, I am suggesting sourcing of it. Tigraan (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Has it occurred to you that readers may simply be interested in knowing how many shootings their state has per year per capita relative to others nearby? That's what the article does. It is not necessary to start addressing "implications" (after supposing them) which will immediately drag the article down an endless spiral of political edit-warring. Pax 06:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of people want to know a lot of things, and we do not include them all (WP:USEFUL, and, again, WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Hence why a source that shows some interest for those stats would be useful. I am not advocating to put text analysis, I am just advocating that a source be found that links the two statistics together; if it is so obvious that people are interested, surely it will be easy to find. Tigraan (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and move to wikiversity. WP:OR Antigng (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep this seems like a political move towards deletion: placing two sets of statistics that are common-sense relevant together, does not constitute Synthesis. There are plenty of secondary sources that would bring the two together (I shouldn't have to link to them). Sadads (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Piffle. What is "political" about sticking to Wikipedia standards? GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should link to them - WP:BURDEN. Moreover, a big database of every stat about every US state would not be enough for that: what we need is some source that discusses the relation between said stats, or at least states that they are relevant together. I do not think WP:BLUE ought to apply here.
 * As for the WP:COI accusation, I live in a country where people who want firearms on sale are viewed as lunatics. I guess you would have accused me of the opposite bias. Tigraan (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge. There are so many similar lists of statistics by states which rely on primary sources, even single sources, that there is a de facto standard allowing them. See Lists of U.S. state topics and Template:USStateLists. I believe such lists are generally encyclopedic in nature (especially to the extent there are overlaps between encyclopedias and almanacs). That said, the current policies and guidelines, as written, appear to strongly discourage these list articles, and that's hard to ignore. Whether this individual list is desirable is a matter of opinion, and it'd be best if I didn't give mine. All things considered, I think the best solution would be to merge the table into the most relevant article, which is probably Gun violence in the United States. Rezin (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not merge. If we merged, the other article would get really long and then we'd have to split again. This article should simply be deleted because it is WP:Original research. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Flat out wrong. Compiling data from government sources into a table does not fall under the WP definitions of original research. See No_original_research: "Routine calculations do not count as original research...". Pax 07:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You could have quoted WP:CALC in its entirety, which includes "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." That list of example makes it fairly clear that "routine calculation" is about doing math, and putting together two pieces of information that the sources do not unite is not doing math.
 * This being said, "do not merge because the main article is too lengthy" is a very weak argument. Tigraan (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Calculating a rate is about as simple as math gets for anyone beyond elementary school, particularly for yearly statistics. And let me quote yourself right back at you: "You could have quoted WP:CALC in its entirety, which includes..." (here comes the part you skipped over) "....provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources..."
 * -So far, nobody in this AfD has argued that the numbers are wrong; and I think that rather telling. Pax 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the problem is not that dividing one number by another is complex math (I think even fairly complex operations can qualify as WP:CALC, if their complexity is purely a matter of mathematical technique, see above). The problem is with the decision of which statistics to calculate or to use. Tigraan (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep . The list is very relevant. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not up to us to decide whether it is relevant, but to the sources (WP:ILIKEIT). Tigraan (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. A reasonable fork of the now very lengthy Gun violence in the United States. Title is a clunker, IMO, but it's derivative and easily-solved with a move. Pax</b> 07:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The gun control debate is perpetual, and people are always looking for reliable statistics. The FBI reports homicide rates by state, and raw numbers of homicides by weapon by state, but they do not publish homicide rates by weapon by state, even though it would be trivial to do so. But I see no reason why the bar against original research would mean wikip could not perform this simple division. I would source all the data from the FBI report, however, to prevent inconsistent results. 50.0.36.95 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was ready to hate this as an original essay but this is a reasonable and non-tendentious presentation of sourced data. Carrite (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - This isn't original research or synthesis, it's simply a combination of statistics from three reliable published sources. Synthesis requires that a conclusion be drawn or implied from two or more separate sources, but that's not happening in this article.  In other words, "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition".  It's also not required that you use secondary sources, WP:Scholarship actually says, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." (emphasis mine).  The article is informative and accurate; it gave me the info I needed quickly and easily.  Therefore I see no good reason not to keep it.  --  Hi  Ev  00:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the center of the debate. I do think putting together an array is more than simple juxtaposition, and that it implies that gun ownership percentages are causally relevant to gun homicide rates (which they are, most likely, but a source (even primary) would be good). Tigraan (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

KEEP. The reason given for deletion is it "seems" that a juxtaposition of elements might imply something lead to a conclusion. This is no reason at all and very strongly seems to be a contention from the Gun Lobby of the sort that determines the acts of congressmen (no public health studies of gun murders) but should not influence Wikipedia. FrankBlank (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are no "public health studies of gun murders", it is not to Wikipedia to come up with its own study, that is precisely what the original research policies are all about. I stand by my affirmation that such a list constitutes synthesis (unless a source is given). Tigraan (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Here's the key from the "Synth pages:" not mere juxtaposition. Just bringing factoids together which might imply connection or conclusions is not synth. Simple arithmetical operations are not original research. This is not welcome news for paranoid ideologues. Tapered (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Addendum Raw numbers are often taken from primary sources, such as government data. There's no virtue in or need in taking data fr/ the NYTimes instead of the USCensus. The primary sources rationale for deletion doesn't fly. Tapered (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do not delete this article unless you are replacing it with more comprehensive and complete and up to date data. Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.65.82 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2015 (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.