Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defensive gun use incidents


 * 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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

List of defensive gun use incidents

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:Listcruft, specifically an indiscriminate collection of information, unlimited/unmaintainable and with its individual items not being notable. Don Cuan (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Soupy sautoy (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:LC Topher385 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (Significantly weakened or neutralized) Delete. I am always troubled when I see a list-type article for which the criteria for membership are indistinct, and this is no exception.  I can think of no way in which to rigorously define either "defensive" or "incidents" and thus suggest that this list will be more trouble than its debatable worth.  (I suggest that if this article is retained, its name should somehow reflect the 100% American nature of its contents or else it should be expanded to a global level.) Ubelowme U  Me  22:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * After some detailed and useful work by the article's creator to define these terms I believe most of my objections to have been met and I have annotated my !vote accordingly. Ubelowme U  Me  14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not seem to serve an encyclopedic purpose. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Nothing indiscriminate about it--WP:IINFO lists three sorts of indiscriminate info, and "news stories on one topic" isn't one of them. The nom is also clearly wrong in that there is a specific criteria for list inclusion: defensive use of firearms reported in reliable sources.  The other Delete !voters are unconvincing, although I don't disagree with Ubelowme's rename suggestion.  The notion that "Defensive" or "incident" are sufficiently ill-defined that deletion is the preferred outcome is uncompelling.  The GNG is met, the sources appear clearly adequate, and no delete !voter has put forth any policy-based reason that this list article is unsuitable or couldn't be fixed by regular editing per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am grateful for Jclemens having pointed out the deficiency in my argument, which has given me the opportunity to look at this from a different perspective.  I agree that the sources are reliable and that deficiencies could be amended by regular editing -- I am suggesting that the topic is unsuitable (which supersedes regular editing) because the imprecise definition of "defensive" (and to a lesser extent "incident") renders the inclusion/exclusion of a list entry in the nature of original research.  I am unable to conceive of a way in which the topic could be tweaked to make the criteria sufficiently rigorous so that an original research fuzzy logic decision would not be required; someone might suggest something with which I'd agree, though.   I agree that each individual incident meets the GNG (for an event or a person) but question whether the primary characteristic of each incident would be unambiguously "defensive".  I have to admit I agree with CapitalSasha in that I can't think of why anyone would look to Wikipedia for such a list, and I think it would be hellish amounts of work to maintain, but those are thoughts not associated with policy.  Ubelowme U  Me  04:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Creator Keep I shall employ the multi-prongedScicilian Defense. Also, I should tell you, I am not left handed.
 * WP:LCis an essay, not a guideline or policy.
 * Further, this article in general does not meet the criteria for LC (although a case could be made for #10 as done above in some editors !vote)
 * Additionally, the LC essay itself states Generally speaking, the perception that an article is listcruft can be a contributing factor to someone voting for deletion, but it may not be the sole factor.
 * All of the entries in the list are referenced, and a (admitedly weak) case for individual WP:GNG and independant article creation could be made. The obvious counterargument is that we are not a newspaper, and these events are not of lasting effect - which I would agree to. However, collectively they FAR surpass WP:GNG and a 2-3 line summary for each event as a collective IS of lasting value.
 * As for criteria of the list, I have added a pass at the criteria to the article which roughly outlines my intent and general use of the terms "Defensive Gun Use" (see points below) - however, I am certainly open to collaboration and consensus building on a different set of criteria
 * Regarding the title Defensive Gun Use (commonly seen as DGU) is a WP:COMMONNAME in use by pro-gun, anti-gun, and neutral reliable sources, although I am open to alternative titles
 * Saying the word "incident" is undefined seems pretty Clinton-esque
 * While the current content of the article is US only dominated (however several non US entries have been added), and may likely remain so due to (so far my personal) access to sources, relative frequency of events meeting the criteria, and discrepancy in how such events are reported worldwide, the topic is by no means US only. However if consensus wants to make this a US only article, I suppose I would not object too strongly. (moved from comment below to keep my arguments together) Found a significant Canadian entry (possibly deserving of its own article), as well as the several surveys mentioned above covering this topic involving Canada. Also found this Israeli incident, already with a wiki article Shai Dromi ** NOTESAL A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines - I believe this bar has been easily surpassed (see the several studies linked/mentioned below in the criteria comment below)
 * Please review the close rationalle on the following AFD : Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination) POV is not a valid reason for deletion unless it is entirely unsourceable. If this article has content that conveys a POV without offering well sourced alternative positions, that content needs to be dealt with by editors and article improvement. WP:NPOV seeks to have content that is balanced when there are multiple views on a subject. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. It is not intended with eliminate a particular POV just because it exists. The same logic applies to claims of WP:NOR. If there are conclusions drawn in the content that is unsupportable by sources, then editors need to deal with it in the process of article improvement. If the title needs to change, suggest a rename
 * I believe there is a WP:NPOV concern in that WP:OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, there are many lists detailing violent/illegal use of weapons, and allowing those articles but excluding a single list showing positive use of weapons is a WP:POV preference in the gun politics debate. See List of rampage killers List of school-related attacks List of unsuccessful attacks related to schools List of attacks related to primary schools List of unsuccessful attacks related to schools etc.
 * Gaijin42 (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm sorry, not being American I don't understand what you mean by "Clinton-esque".  I do appreciate the additions to the criteria; they seem to be a detailed explanation of what type of incidents are listworthy and not.  My immediate thought was that this now seems focused around "stand your ground" gun laws in the US and that this might be a more useful criterion upon which to focus; to the best of my knowledge the US is the only large country that has such laws and they seem to be contentious at the moment.  At any rate, after seeing this detailed definition, I am less strongly suggesting that this article should be deleted, but I do think it needed this work. Ubelowme U  Me  14:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * During Bill Clinton's adultry scandal, he somewhat famously replied to a judge "That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton In any case, my comment on that point was a bit snarky for which I apologize. While I think that the title is perfectly self explanitory and in plain meaning, I am open to alternate titles and wording if it can improve clarity. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Reading through the arguments presented, and I agree it should be kept. This list has very specific inclusion criteria so it isn't "indiscriminate".   D r e a m Focus  15:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: as indiscriminate, WP:ORIGINALSYN, and against our list selection criteria which makes it completely unmaintainable. There are ten qualifying incidents in one month alone. It would be like having a "List of concerts in Ohio", or "List of political speeches": you would have a list with literally thousands of entries, perhaps even millions. The creator of the article is using a false equivalence to make his point. Yes, we have articles listing gun attacks, but they focus on a specific higher class of incident (like rampages), not every single gun murder committed in the United States of America. His argument also reeks of a WP:SOAPBOX, as the article is being used as an agenda to correct a perceived imbalance in the gun debate. The lack of articles about defensive gun use is duly noted, but it does not justify creating a completely unencyclopedic list. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Every item in the list has recieved multiple RS coverages (although I generally did not include all of them, to avoid WP:OVERCITEing). These are not passing "police blotter" one line mentions, but full detailed articles, interviews, and stories on every item in the list. You yourself have made the false equivilence of "every gun murder", which certainly does not recieve the same level of coverage as these incidents. Certainly the total number of items on the list may be large and growing, but it is not volitile, and it is a partial list, not every incident will be listed. The fact that the a single month had many incidents has more to do with the fact that this is THIS month, so that when I did my initial search, many articles were available. Additionally with the recent batman massacre and other gun politics stories in the news, I believe there is probably a "blood in the water" reaction by news sources and they will temporarily publish more of this type of story. You are very right that I percieve an imbalance in our coverage of gun politics. working towards correcting that imbalance is not a negative, but virtually mandated by WP:NPOV. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We just don't ever do this. Ever. We don't compile news stories on a similarly common topic and try to assemble a list of literally thousands of incidents. We wouldn't create a "list of games played by the New York Knicks" -- even though every game would be sourceable, to multiple reliable sources, each a highly specific event (more specific than the criteria you invented here). We wouldn't create a "list of all incidents of drug crime" -- even if we sourced every single one to the news. The main reason is because you would have an article with thousands upon thousands of entries. I'm not opposed to creating an article about defensive gun use, cited to a few general statistics about hundreds or thousands. But it's completely against our policies to create a list of every single incident that composes that statistic of thousands. Specifically see the WP:LSC guideline:
 * "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K)"
 * Again, citing some statistics about defensive gun use ("Experts have estimated that guns might prevent up to 500 robberies per year, and 250 violent crimes") in some other articles would be fine. But trying to compile that statistical data yourself by creating an index of every perceived gun defense in the worldwide news constitutes original research in the form of synthesis, and contrary to our policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a highly selective reading of that guideline. short complete lists is merely ONE of the types of list which is approved. The other two types of lists clearly cover THIS list, (depending on if you think these items individually meet WP:GNG or not.) Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia and 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 There are hundreds of thousands (up to millions by some estimates) of DGUs every year. A very small percentage of those recieve coverage and have sufficient notability/importance for inclusion. But because a small % of a big number may still be a big number is not sufficient criteria for an article and list to not exist at all. Propose more stringent criteria if you think the list should be more restrictive. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * and by the way, we DO in fact have lists of every game played by the knicks. 2010%E2%80%9311_New_York_Knicks_season is repeated many times visible via Category:New_York_Knicks_seasons also see List_of_New_York_Knicks_first_and_second_round_draft_picks and for your other example. List of drug-related deaths Thanks for the great ideas for WP:OTHERSTUFF !! See also List_of_computer_criminals List_of_convicted_war_criminals or pretty much every list in Category:Crime-related_lists. This is way beyond WP:OTHERSTUFF this is WP:OUTCOMES. You need to justify why this particular topic is treated differently than all other. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: POV-pushing listcruft p  b  p  18:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What point of view is being pushed?  D r e a m Focus  02:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The point-of-view that people should be allowed to pack heat for defensive purposes p  b  p  13:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * People _do_ use heat for defensive pruposes. that is a fact, which this list documents. This article is not direclty making an argument about the appopriateness or not of that fact. However, it is equally well a POV that people should NOT be allowed to do so, and excluding this article on that basis would also be a POV violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs)


 * PBP, Are you against the articles that list gun related crimes? Is that POV encouraging gun control by glorifying the gun related murders that have happened?   D r e a m Focus  14:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Comment The three sub-points in WP:INDISCRIMINATE are not a finite list of what can constitute indiscriminate information, but explicitly named examples. I used indiscriminate in the word sense, i.e. that the selection of items came off as random or arbitrary (the list is also heavily US-centric and biased towards recent events, but that could be justified by its age). The inclusion criteria that have been added to the list post-AfD don't make thing any better either, as they try to redefine what constitutes defensive gun use and what does not. Don Cuan (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * if you think my criteria are incorrect, then please proprose different ones. I honestly feel that that does capture the spirit of DGU pretty well, but certainly am open to improvement. You have implicitly agree in your comment that there is such a thing as a defensive gun use, but you think i have defined it incorrectly.  If anything, my criteria are over restrictive and could eliminate incidents which are in a gray area where the use was by police, or a criminal, etc. If that is your objection, it seems like a title change to civilian DGU or something would address the issue. IMO non-civilian use is wp:routine and also not a source of any controversy (except in cases of misconduct, which is already covered in other lists)The article is recentism and us centric, but that has been based on my work so far, working backwards  through some of the sources I have found.  Obviously as this content is primarily driven by these events being reported on, more recent newspaper and rv reports are easier to find, and, truly non recent ones are going to be much harder to find, although there may be some incidents with super-notability that have made it into books etc, that I and others can look for. However, difficulty in finding older sources does not mean older events that would fit the criteria do not exist, so the list is not formally limited to recent events  I disagree with your application of the word  indiscriminate,  as th selection of items is not random at all, but narrowly meeting the criteria set out. In any case, none of those reasons seem like valid reasons for deletion to me, but all things that can be improved in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a police blotter. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin42 (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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


 * Keep - This list meets list notability criteria WP:NOTESAL as there is ample coverage of Defensive Gun Use Incidents discussed as a group in reliable sources. For example this one:  --Mike Cline (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - This list is potentially way, way too big; scope is enormous; inclusion of any item on the list likely to create great controversy back and forth.  It's also clearly a NPOV issue, attempting to make a political point by selection of incidents.  Why not "incidents in which guns were used non-defensively" or "incidents in which guns were used accidentally"?  At the moment, for example, it is so arbitrarily selected as to have nothing before 1976; one entry for 1976; nothing again until 2007 (2 entries); skips 2008 & 2009; 1 entry in 2010; and then a slew of entries in 2011 and 2012.  Why?  Because the items are being picked from recent news coverage on recent articles on gun violence and gun control arguments.  Are the items covered recently more notable than older items?  No, of course not.  Far better to have an article that discusses uses of guns in self-defense, selectively discussing high-profile (i.e., "notable") cases and the critiques and justifications in those instances.  --Lquilter (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any policy or guideline saying that potentially large lists are not allowed. The list selection is currently very skewed by time, and you are correct that that is because thus far more recent events are easier to find and source. That is true of EVERY list on wikipedia. Surely you agree that incidents in other time ranges exist? That they have not thus far been added is not cause for deletion - that is the whole purpose of the incomplete list template. The selection criteria for incidents is following several neutral reliable sources as to the definition of a defensive gun use (see several studies quoted in this discussion) by both pro and anti gun sources. You have made a hand-wave allusion towards arguments regarding includsion, but no concrete issue with the criteria or any particular incident. As for your two WP:OTHERSTUFF examples, we DO in fact  have Category:Firearm_accident_victims and Category:Firearm_deaths_by_location. Again, allowing every other list/category regarding firearms, but not this one is a WP:POV problem.  Per WP:CLS Categories and lists are often interchangeable and a matter of style, and specifically WP:AOAL #15 covers this specific list, may include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may yet be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list. Furthermore, since the notability threshold for a mention is less than that for a whole article, you can easily add a mention to a list within an article, without having to make the judgment call on notability which you would need to make if you were to add a whole article Further WP:CSC specifically includes lists where the members are non-notable as a valid criteria (accepting for the sake of argument that these items are not notable, which I am not in-fact stipulating. Regarding your proposed article/title, I agree that is a fine topic (which is covered in several sections of other articles currently) which could be split off into a standalone article. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, I don't see convincing arguments for deletion here, and arguments for what the simple existence of a similar article would be a NPOV violation pushing a gun control legislation appear a bit ridicoulous (should we delete articles such as the Oak Creek mass shooting as they could push, with stronger evidences, similar results?). I'm not against proposed renaming such as "incidents in which guns were used accidentally", if they solve concerns of someone. Cavarrone (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This is certainly a notable topic, but I am a little worried about scope. Would support a move and partial content transfer to Defensive Gun Use Zaldax (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2012 (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.