Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun use

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Userfy. back to User:Felsic2/Gun use. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gun use


4 editors, myself User:RAF910, User:Springee, User:Toddy1, and User:72bikers believe that this page should be deleted. Please see, Wikipedia talk:Gun use. As User:Toddy1 stated best... "WP:NOTSOAPBOX says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda.." This essay is in breach of that policy, and advocates adding further breaches of the policy to articles in guns." RAF910 (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * DELETE as stated above and on article talk page--RAF910 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Thanks for starting a deletion discussion. If people want a soapbox and a vehicle for propaganda, they should write to newspapers and news-websites, or even write a book.  Wikipedia is not meant to be such a vehicle.--  Toddy1 (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible keep This essay is not a violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. It advocates including certain sorts of content in specific articles. It gives policy-based reasons for this view. One might not agree with its conclusions, but they are not irrational conclusions from Wikipedia's basic policies. This essay does not in any way advocate violation of Wikipedia policies. It advocates including accounts of notable use of particular types of guns (including positive as well as negative accounts), cited to secondary sources, in articles about those types of guns. It suggests that such mentions should be brief, 1-2 sentences per incident, should link to separate articles about such incidents, and only incidents notable enough to have such an article should be so included. None of that is improper soapboxing. Accurate reporting of the facts, which such mentions would be, is not soapboxing. Of course that does not mean that such mentions will need to be made. This essay merely makes a case for such mentions. It seems that the main offense on the part of this essay is that it advocates a view and a course of action which a number of editors disagree with and dislike. That is not a valid reason for deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep it is fine to use Wikipedia as a platform for expressions of opinion about Wikipedia, as long as those are within the project or user namespaces. From WP:NOTSOAPBOX: Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. This is the whole point of having essays: they express the opinion of one or more editors about some aspect of Wikipedia. This essay is an expression of opinion about how we should write articles about guns. I won't object to userfying the page if it expresses a minority opinion, but the nominator hasn't articulated anything which is a rationale for deletion.  Hut 8.5  20:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Move back to userspace Userfy - The page was moved from userspace by socks. – TheGridExe  ( talk )  20:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I know two of the listed supporters of deleting this as strong POV pushers against anything that shows guns or the NRA in any kind of negotive light. 72bikers is under a sanction about gun pages. There is no reason for deleting this. Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The only question is where to put it, but the move discussion was derailed by arguments to delete it (followed by an MfD that pinged only people who would support deletion). Should be moved to a different title, since it's obviously not uncontroversial, but the same rationales given to delete it here are the same ones the author of this essay would probably use to describe the practices it's intended to counter (perhaps it swung too far in the other direction, but it is just an essay and doesn't seem to directly conflict with policy). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy I've opposed this opinion carrying the veneer of acceptability connoted by existence in WP space. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Since several editors who has previously expresses a specific w were pinged above, in arguable violation of WP:CANVASS, I am now pinging the other editors who commented on the talk page, or were mentioned there, excepting ones who already been pined or have edited this page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't ping anyone. Please retract your statement. And, now that you have pinged the "others" make certain that you ping everyone else.--RAF910 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes you did ping 4 editors in your nomination which violates CANVASS. Also the nominator does not get to vote again, so you should adjust that. Legacypac (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. Look again, all I did was BLUE link their user page, Because they stated that they were in favor of deletion on the articles talk page. --RAF910 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * When you link to a users user page as part of a signed comment,, you ping that user. All ping and U and similar templates do, is create such a link. If you want to provide a link to a user without pinging that user, use noping. See WP:ECHO. I will concede that you may not have intended to ping those users, but you surely did so. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the first I've heard of this. I thought that you had to actually "ping" to "ping".--RAF910 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have seen this regardless. Why does editor Legacypac find the need to state unfounded accusations? Was that a attempt to have my vote not count?-72bikers (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - In its present form, it should be deleted as inappropriate for the Project namespace as it is too specific, too WP:NOTSOAPBOX/partisan, and gives advice which could breech core policies and other guidelines for what we include in articles. Such a discussion must be made on a per-article basis, judging the weight of sources. Felsic2 is free to make a copy of his initial essay and recreate in userspace if he wants, with formatting appropriate for there, but I would encourage him not to and instead recognize the importance of not approaching the editorial process with such a set goal in mind. -- Netoholic @  21:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC) (updated)
 * The move wasn't done by the user originally. Discussion of that is here. – TheGridExe  ( talk )  21:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Hut 8.5, there is no valid rationale for deletion.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 21:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 *  Keep Userfy. WP:SOAPBOX says, Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace.  That's exactly what this essay does.  If you don't agree with the opinion, the correct response is to write your own rebuttal essay.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, by keep, I mean, don't delete. I'm fine with either leaving it in WP space or moving it back to user space, per User:Dennis Brown, below.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Upon reviewing WP:USERESSAY, I now believe this should be moved back into user space. My previous understanding was that essays were essays, and whether they existed in project space or user space didn't make much difference.  WP:USERESSAY, however, says that essays in user space have greater latitude to espouse minority opinions than those in project space.  That certainly seems to apply here. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Userfy Hut makes good points against deleting outright, but the original author didn't move it, a sock did, so the best solution is just to restore the placement. Reverting a sock's actions is hardly new. Had someone moved my essay, I would want it restored, and I would want to decide when/if to move to mainspace.  Yes, we don't "own" our own words, but we have generally not forced an editor to move an essay. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The original creator has not edited in over a year. There is ample precedent for promoting or deleting drafts by a retired or inactive user, and at least some precedent for moving essays by an inactive user into either another editor's userspace, or into project space. The original move would have been fine had the moving editor been legit rather than a sock. Since then, at two editors in good standing have actually moved this into project space, and others have said that it does or might belong there. This is no longer a matter of reverting a move by a sock. Indeed the sock's actions or intentions are no longer relevant at all to the current state of the issue. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this really an essay you think is ready for prime time? The original author didn't, which is my point.  If we can't move this essay back to user space, then any essay anyone starts in main space is pretty much bullet proof, and impossible to move. And the socks action do seem to be relevant, as had they not moved it to begin with, it would likely be in user space with no one noticing it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * DELETE Userfy as stated above and on article talk page. Editor Legacypac please keep your attempts to not have my vote count to yourself.72bikers (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This essay doesn't advocate including all criminal use, in fact the "How to include" section suggests criteria for determining which events are notable enough for inclusion. It was written at a time when a group of editors were imposing extremely strict criteria which allowed only certain specific types of criminal use, limiting those select few cases to a "See also" link. The author seems to be advocating that inclusion be allowed and suggests brief mentions of less than a paragraph. Essays that promote a certain practice or viewpoint are actually quite useful, and editors are free to follow their advice or ignore it. –dlthewave ☎ 22:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete but:. I think the essay is crap but I have to admit I can't think of a policy reason for deletion. As such I would suggest userfy. Springee (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy per WP:USERESSAY. The author placed this in their userspace and it should be returned there until they choose otherwise. This should result in less squabbling about its content as well. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy for now A great deal of work went into subject matter dealing with a difficult arena and it may (or may not) turn out to be useful. O3000 (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * This is not a simple "How to edit Wikipedia" essay. This is not about how to add "ABC info" to "XYZ articles". :This is a very narrowly tailored essay about adding a very specific type of info to very specific type of articles. This essay accuses opponents of violating Wiki policies and encourages editors to ignore all opposition. This essay encourages editors to add any info they want. As long as you have a reference, nobody can stop you. It is an SOAPBOX, EDIT WARRIORS AND WIKI-LAWYERS GUIDE. And, it most definitely encourages battleground behavior. As such it should be deleted.--RAF910 (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can surely agree that this essay is quite narrowly tailored to a very specific situation. But many of our essays are rather narrowly tailored, giving advice that only applies in very specific situations. But,, where exactly does this ? On the contrary it says Where exactly does the essay ? Please be specific. You say that the essay  What it actually says it that some often-made arguments are faulty, specifically it says: . To say that someone's argument is faulty is not at all the same as to accuse someone of violating Wikipedia policies. You say that the essay encourages "Edit Warriors". Again, where? I don't see any such encouragement, unless any advocacy for including mentions of criminal or violent use in gun articles is inherently the act of an edit warrior. In short, please back up your rather generic assertions by specific quotes from the4 essay. It isn't that long -- if those things are there, you should easily be able to point to exactly where they are to be found in the text. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The 23 Rebuttals to common arguments, all have the same theme. There are no valid argument to exclude said information. Anyone who does so is wrong and can be ignored. This is all just one editors opinion of course. Then again, the essay is just one editors opinion. --RAF910 (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * DESiegel, to be fair regarding RAF910's statement that this, accuses opponents of violating Wiki policies, it does say exactly that. First paragraph: This is a major violation of Wikipedia's core policies. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct, RoySmith, I had failed to sufficiently consider that introductory section. It should probably be changed. I still suggest that there is a significant difference between saying that certain acts or procedures are contrary to our policies, and accusing a specific person or a group of violating policy. People can misinterpret policy, or not have read it, and do things against policy in perfect good faith. This happens quite a bit, and not just on the part of new editors. The essay can be read as saying that exclusion of violent incidents is contrary to policy, but without intention to commit a violation. I think i will alter it a bit to say that more clearly. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Assume good faith..."Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith." The first thing this essay does, is accuse opponents of violating Wiki policies. It is designed to wear down opponents with endless debate. Imagine yourself dealing with someone who is following this essay to the letter, constantly accusing you of violating Wiki policies because you disagree with his edits. If I were to followed the essay's advise during this discussion, I would have an ANI filed against me and be voted off the island by the end of the day. Therefore, the simplest course of action is to just delete it.--RAF910 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Essay on Wikipedia content.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Edits made I have just made some changes to the essay, in an effort to clarify that it is not intended to accuse people of intentional policy violations, nor to encourage people to edit in a battleground style, nor to ignore AGF, nor to seek to add any information that is not verifiable and part of an already notable (because blue-linked) topic. I hope these edits will to some degree address the objections above, without changing the basic meaning of the essay. I realize that some editors will still disagree with the essay and dislike it, but I hope that any arguably valid reasons for deletion have been addressed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep but userfy No good reason offered for deletion, but probably more suitable in user space.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy. The advice here is terrible, but that's not really a reason to delete it. Nevertheless, I wouldn't object if it was deleted. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: the essay doesn't advocate circumventing policies & guidelines; suitable for Wiki-space as an essay on Wiki content. The opinions expressed in i may not be shared by all, but that's not a reason for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy Seems the best compromise, no clear line to delete but certainly not ready even for essay status. PackMecEng (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * {re|PackMecEng} Which specific issues make it "not ready even for essay status"? What criteria are you using to decide what qualifies an essay for Wiki space? –dlthewave ☎ 15:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Poor layout, incomplete, and not particularly helpful. I would not be surprised if it could be brought up to a reasonable standard. Just at the moment it is not. I am not seeing a benefit to the community by keeping an incomplete working page as a essay. PackMecEng (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep and keep it in Wikipedia space. I'm a little baffled this is even a debate. This piece is just advocating for a particular way the its author feels Wikipedia policy should be approached and articles should be written. I don't particularly agree with it, but if we're going to start deleting these kinds of pages, people are going to be pretty busy. There are loads of essays similar to this one in Wikipedia space. Poor layout is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard for deleting a page. I suspect the only reason this discussion is even taking place is politically motivated.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This essay I believe is very dangerous to Wiki. It read like a attempt to circumvent Wiki policies. It also reads like just one editors opinion, and that those opinion should trump policy. It makes verry broad ussumptions also base solely on a editors opinions. It contradicts itself by stating that it knows why reader come to these articles or some other specificity, then goes on to state that others do not know why they come or some other specificity. All of this without showng any logical reason or any factual support for these views. I believe this set a very bad precedent by claiming facts with no factual support or based on anything more than just ones opinions. It is in essence setting up battleground fighting because of its nature of contradicting policies, broad assumptions, and opininated views. No warning of this, I would blieve would change that behavior. -72bikers (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see where this essay is in any way an, but if it were it would be pretty much sure to fail. What policies does it try to circumvent, , and how? Have you read it since my recent edits to it, mentioned above? All essays start as . Some gain wider support. A few gain very wide support indeed. But being just one editor's view is fine. What facts does this essay incorrectly or falsely assert or claim? Essays are supposed to be opinions, and so are likely to be opinionated. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I don't particularly agree with the content of the essay, but its argument is shows much more "logical reason" than your argument, 72bikers. Here's just one example: You complain that the essay makes "broad assumptions" (do you have any factual support for that view?) right after you claim that the essay is just one editor's opinion. How do you know that no one but the author agrees with the essay? That's an incredibly broad assumption. And even if it was just one editor's opinion, what would that imply? The whole point of an essay like this is to try to convince others. That's clearly what you're afraid of: that it might actually be persuasive. If you weren't afraid of its persuasiveness, there'd be no reason to fear battleground fighting.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You are aware your statement "That's clearly what you're afraid of: that it might actually be persuasive. If you weren't afraid of its persuasiveness, there'd be no reason to fear battleground fighting." Is a very incorrect broad assumption, that has no value. It would appear to be just a emotional comment.


 * There is no bright line between what the community chooses to call a "policy" or a "guideline" or an "essay" or an "information page" I belive this leeway on this issue will be in error. This essay suggestions having a one sided opinion and statements about the truth of a theory that is at odds with mainstream views in its particular field, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, with idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views It makes very broad assumptions that lacks to maintain a neutral point of view.


 * This would indubitably lead to many battleground fights because of this and how it is structured. I understand that essays have not been thoroughly vetted by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, and we do not hold it to the same criteria. It will never less be used as a source of reference in battleground fighting, regardless of any warning, that I beive will have little to no affect on this. -72bikers (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's a pretty narrow statement. It's not broad, since I was only writing about your argument, not about the community in general. It's not an assumption, but the only possible explanation for what you wrote. How could you expect this essay to be harmful if it didn't persuade people?


 * A lot of what you wrote is unintelligible, but from what I gather you haven't understood that the undue weight guideline only pertains to articles not to material in other spaces.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Does smell a little of activism but it is opinions on the operation of Wikipedia. If there really is strong precedent against overly opinionated essays then I could see Userfy.
 * "This is a guidance essay containing the advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, although it may be consulted for assistance. This page may contain opinions that are shared by few or no other editors, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."
 * —DIYeditor (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that the template you're quoting was added after the nomination. Actually, a lot has been changed since nomination with the article. – TheGridExe  ( talk )  00:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In my view I can only !vote based on the current state of the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Userfy, WP:USERESSAY that was moved by a sock. If the author had wanted it moved they would have done so themselves.  Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Userfy as author-requested. w umbolo   ^^^  16:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep looks fine as an essay. VQuakr (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.