Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia coverage of firearms

Wikipedia coverage of firearms

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whilst it may be sourced this looks like editorializing. As well as a veiled attack page on WikiProject Firearms. Blatant soapboxing Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One in the eye for the US gun lobby and our clearly NRA influenced arms in Merkia coverage. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject meets WP:GNG with several independent articles in various newspapers. There are additional sources that I did not use, such as a report by the Action on Armed Violence discussing the "criminal use" section of WP:Firearms. The AOAV does research into gun violence and civilians; its reports have been used by independent media, such as Vice News. The organization has collaborated with the Harvard Law School, therefore it can probably be considered an RS. It's true that the reporting on this has been critical, but I dispute the idea that this is an attack page. Catrìona (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is entirely circular and will just be a running commentary. Wikipedia mirroring itself via filtration through a select few press organizations. Cesdeva ^(talk) 13:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on itself; see Category:Wikipedia. The question is does the article follow Wikipedia notability and content policies? Your !vote doesn't address that. Catrìona (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Additionally, the discussion doesn't meet WP:GNG. The articles aren't independent. Three of the sources just refer back to the original Verge article as their only source. Any editor willing to do the leg work will see that article is full of factual errors because the author didn't bother to follow the related talk page discussions. But I think the concerns regarding soapbox and editorializing (as well as attacking active editors) are all legitimate. Springee (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Springee Some of the articles refer to each other, but that doesn't mean that they aren't contributing original reporting. For example, the Haaretz article refers to the Verge article but the writer also did his own investigation: "The follow-up on the work conducted by The Verge revealed that these editors were not focused solely on the articles about the AR-15, but also worked across a web of entries pertaining to guns and rifles in general, and even cultural staples of the gung-ho gun culture." Detailed, in-depth coverage from multiple sources satisfies WP:GNG. In addition, the report mentioned above makes no mention of the Verge article or any other media coverage. As stated on the talk page of the article, I think it would be difficult to incorporate information from talk pages without violating WP:NOR. Catrìona (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt What sort of fresh recursive nonsense is this? Seems more like somebody's attempt at an essay than an appropriate article for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223: I've already fixed a number of issues raised by another user. Perhaps you'd like to give specific feedback so that the article could be improved? Catrìona (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]