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 delete. While the topic of defensive gun use is certainly a notable one, this is not a general article on the subject but a list of incidents. Realistically, this list should include every time it was noted by the press that anyone ever defended themselves with a firearm outside of a law enforcement or military context. This would mean documenting hundreds of thousands pf incidents over the course of the last 800 years. How to determine which incidents were legitimate self defense and which were not is not clearly defined, and of course the point is raised repeatedly that this list is unlikely to ever be anywhere near complete. While in most cases that is not really a valid argument, in this case the difference between what we have now and what it would be if it were honestly made into a real list of such incidents is a staggeringly wide gap. I find as a matter of policy-based arguments that consensus favors having an article on this subject, but this list is not that article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of defensive gun use incidents[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of defensive gun use incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for an IP, I am neutral. His/her rationale (originally posted on the talk page) follows:


Mark Arsten (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The overall topic is notable, and per Wikipedia:CSC#Common_selection_criteria lists of non notable individual items are specifically a valid list selection criteria. A main article is certainly a good idea. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This list is restricted to ones that have recieved reliable coverage, which is a significantly smaller subset. Every entry here has at least one referene, many have more, and thoe ones that only have one ref, in many cases there were more refs available, but were not included due to trying not to WP:OVERLINK
If guncite is correct and 1 out of 100 of those cases receive coverage, we should have 100,000 entries on this list from the 20th century alone. I think we're going to need a bigger boat. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An article describing a notable POV does not itself violate NPOV. The POV issue is allowing List_of_murders,List_of_rampage_killers,List_of_familicides but not a single list showing the other side. from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content. also see WP:OUTRAGE Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
The defensive gun use article is needed, agreed. I've done my best to include non-US incidents, but as gun laws generally more restrictive elsewhere, they are hard to find - plus ones that aren't in English are obviously much harder to find for US people. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that it would be better to have an article, so I was WP:BOLD and created one. I get the impression that some of the people who want to keep the list are doing so because they think the subject is a good idea, and therefore want to keep the list. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Defensive gun use is a widely discussed and debated topic, and it would be interesting to have an overview of the topic summarizing research and opinions from all sides. This list has been specifically designed to not be that overview, including only the most positive incidents and views: "Roberts was quoted as saying "It's not [politically correct] to run around in public wielding a handgun, but it's sometimes necessary," he said. "And [it's] our moral responsibility — not just [that of] the police — [to] defend other lives when we can". If kept, I suggest moving to simply List of gun use incidents to make sure Wikipedia is covering all varieties of gun use, rather than those that fit a particular legislative agenda.
As a side note, I'm also not fond of the strategy of giving an AfD a few days, and then when seeing that the vote is turning against it, making a transparent attempt to recruit new voters from presumed sympathetic pools. Unfortunately, it'll probably work here, but such is Wikipedia. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically invited quite a few people who voted delete the previous AFD, so I think your accusation is misplaced. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I bet the fact that there were more keeps than deletes didn't influence your thinking at all. But I don't want to get sidetracked here; I agree your actions were within policy. The main point I want to emphasize here is that it's silly to have a list of incidents like "Jane Gunowner scared off a masturbator with a handgun" while we would never allow a worldwide list of handgun murders. It's indiscriminate, and it's POV. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you have an AFD so soon, it makes sense to tell all those before about it. Wouldn't be fair otherwise. We don't want people to keep nominating the same article time and time again, until they get what they want, that gaming the system. Who is this IP address really? Seems odd for a new user to be acting this way. [1] Dream Focus 16:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The waiting two days until the first round of votes were in was what struck me--that and also notifying all past contributors to the article. Willing to agree to disagree, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator here. Since my anonymous edit seems to have caused concerned, I went through the effort of digging out my password and logging in. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does that acronym mean? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how NOTCLEANUP is relevant here pbp 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete savable content, so we shouldn't be at AFD. CallawayRox (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for inclusion closely match the criteria used by the various studies of defensive gun use (See the prior AFD for specific quotes from the studies to back this up). If consensus does say that the sourced name mentions are a BLP issue, that is a simple cleanup, and not delete-worthy. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the non-notable people's names aren't really that relevant, wouldn't it be more prudent for you to simply remove them all, rather than add that to the list of reasons why this article should be deleted? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely see the argument. I had been including them for two reasons - 1) so searches on those names might link to us (Which in retrospect I do admin could cause BLP issues) 2) So that readers already at the article would have some search terms for use for finding additional sources Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having difficulty believing that 95% of those names are likely search terms. As for the additinal source claim: If it is in the article, it should already have a source. Said source will contain the names if people want to search further. Everything doesn't belong in the article.Niteshift36 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that everyone says this, but I would like to state for the record that I have NOT WP:CANVASSED as implied by Collect, and directly accused by PBP. I notified the editors of the article, and of the previous AFD and said so on this very page. I did not make any posts or requests at any other location. I will also notice that this pendulum swings both ways, and the nominator as well as several of the delete votes are anonymous IPs with not much edit history. I think in both cases the result is the increased scrutiny of gun related topics in the context of the Newtown school tragedy. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed that many (if not most) of the incidents would fail GNG on their own. However, this situation is explicitly contemplated by the list MOS : [Wikipedia:CSC#Common_selection_criteria]]. Do you have any narrowing criteria you think should be added? I can think of many that would probably make the article more interesting, but they would also tend to introduce more POV over what is a legitimate defensive use. 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 Gaijin42 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that entries fail GNG, which is of course what lists are sometimes good at fixing, but it's that just as a list of crimes with a firearm (or whatever criteria), no practical wikilist could come close to being even a representative list. For instance, the robbery criteria alone is something that's regularly in the papers, and that's just from what I hear in my local area. Of course if you removed that specific criteria, then it becomes an odd list though. Nationwide, over the 100 year+ span the list already considers, I can't imagine how a list like this could even be representative. Perhaps I'm overestimating the number of incidents this would apply to, and I'm aware it need not be comprenhensive, but it at least needs to give some sense of scale. That's my main concern, and why I think an article addressing the topic, rather than a list, is the way to go.
A list limited to mass murder incidents, for instance, would be much more manageable. A list limited to murders might be possible too, but I suspect even that may be overly ambitious. Shadowjams (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you either misread the criteria or are making an argument where you missed a step in your argument. This is not an article about crimes, but an article about where people defended themselves from crimes. Are you saying the list should be limited to only defensive incidents where they defended themselves from murder? That seems a tough article, as if they were successful it would not actually be a murder, and if they were not, then they didn't manage to defend themselves at all? Or are you just comparing this article to a hypothetical "list of murders" article? If the later, certainly in both cases we would only be able to document a subset of incidents (even a subset of well referenced incidents). However I personally see a value difference in the two articles (which is a POV I suppose), in that nobody denies the existence of murder and that incidents happen quite often - but many people are not aware of or ignore the concept of DGU, and therefore documenting and discussing them (of course in an NPOV manner) is a valuable effort. I certainly admit that that is a POV, but I do not think we have any policy which says articles which neutrally present a POV are disallowed (and in fact we have policies to the contrary) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Gaijin you have completely misread my comment. No, i'm not confused about your criteria, or the purpose of the article. My point is that your criteria encompasses so many incidents the list will never be representative. I make an analogy to a hypothetical List of crimes committed with firearms, which would be equally unmanageable. And before you say that we don't need "completeness" or that AfD is not cleanup, I'm aware of both of those points. It's not completeness we need, but a list that has 5% of the potential entries (and I fear this would always have far less) is problematic.
I suggest a more limited criteria as a solution. This would address most of my issues. Limiting the list to a homicide criteria is one option. And your concern about inchoate offenses is silly, you should easily understand this would include those as well (current criteria doesn't take attempts into account, but would clearly cover them as well; that seems quite obvious to me).
The tldr version is, the list criteria lends itself to such an expansive number of entries that are so common even cursory representative coverage would be unmanageable. Shadowjams (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
how would one know what intended (or incidental) crime would have occurred had the DGU not happened? In any robbery/break in murder is a possible result? Are you saying we should limit the list to only cases where someone was sucessfully greivously assaulted/killed and then a later DGu occurred limiting it? Or where a credible death threat was made? I could see restricting to serious assault, murder etc (definitely exclude the "masturbate" incident for example, but i think any break in where a threat was made, or where the perp was armed would be viable too. Also, I think any incident involving a child, or elderly person as the gun user is more notable, as even an unarmed assailant is a significant threat to them. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed criteria change : Add a criteria that one of the following must be included : 1) Rape, assault, murder, or credible threat (per RS?) thereof. OR 2) any crime involving armed perp 3) or child (<18) or senior (>65). This would exclude the masturbation event, and simple breaking and entering incidents where an unarmed (or not known to be armed) perp was shot/fled/etc without engaging the user (unless a child/senior). Gaijin42 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're adding to the WP:OR criteria now? How about incidents that occurred on a weekday and involved a gun whose average retail price is under $250 (before taxes)? It seems you are trying to fix the OR problem with more OR. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every element (of any list) does not need to be included. It is not OR to say "We are filtering the incident we choose to display", the same as we filter which quotes from notable people we choose to include, which pictures we choose to display, etc. As long as that filtering is done in a neutral way. If it makes you feel better, we can say this is "forming consensus on editorial discretion" rather than a formal change of the criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are creating the topic out of thin air. We can create countless meaningless "List of..." articles this way: List of lollipop flavors, List of left handed people born on Wednesdays, List of prices charged by barbers in Chicago on March 17, 1984, etc. The topic is not "defensive gun use incidents", the topic is "defensive gun use incidents where the gun user was not a cop or member of the military and was not convicted of a crime for using the gun to ... whatever". The inclusion criteria -- a.k.a. the "topic" of this list -- is currently something a Wikipedia editor (or group of editors) dreamed up. It cannot possibly be notable. Additionally, the list is alleged to be huge, supposedly generating thousands of possible candidates each year in the U.S. alone. That this is limited by the wishy-washy "where reliable sources can verify the basic facts of the incident" criterion (basically: the facts must be verifiable...). Getting back to a similar article that should exist if this one does: There are roughly 300 gun homicides in Philadelphia each year. All of them are detailed in the Philadelphia Inquirer (with an annual article linking to each one on a handy-dandy map). That article will add thousands of new entries each year, without question. That (as is alleged here) most of the possible members of this OR category are unreported brings us back to a guess, discussed above: If 1% of them are reported, that's 1,000 new entries each year. 100,000 from the U.S. and 20th century alone. Heck, let's start an exhaustive list of the residents of some smallish town somewhere. We can find a reliable source, the criteria wouldn't be OR (unlike this one) and the list would be just as "encyclopedic" as this one. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking for modification of inclusion criteria. Which is good, but it's not a deletion ratonale: AfD is not cleanup; what you ask can be dealt with editing, not deletion, thus it is an invalid rationale, per deletion policy. --Cyclopiatalk 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If 2 possible people is "A magnet for canvassing by the pro-gun lobby", that's got to be about the weakest lobby in the universe. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Estimates of DGU (depending on definition and survey method) vary from between tens of thousands, to many hundreds of thousands, however under no circumstance would the list be able to include even a small percentage; because only a small percentage of those are reported on, and therefore WP:VERIFIABLE. The number that is reported on is orders of magnitude smaller (by my own count, or that of websites which are compiling similar lists), and serves as a first-level notability filter. Reported on is in the low hundreds with 0-5 per week maybe and of those some do not pass our current criteria, and less would bass the proposed criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking for modification of inclusion criteria. Which is good, but it's not a deletion ratonale: AfD is not cleanup; what you ask can be dealt with editing, not deletion, thus it is an invalid rationale, per deletion policy. --Cyclopiatalk 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify. I am not asking for modification of the inclusion criteria, I am saying there is no possible set of inclusion criteria that is not original research and does not generate a random selection of trivial news items. That we can generate a set of inclusion criteria for List of rainy Mondays in London does not imply we should. (That would be another random selection of trivial news items of no value. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are misquoting the criteria. There is no restriction in the criteria of illegal guns used for self defense. the only restriction in that vein is that criminals in the act of ocmmiting a crime should not be included, which is a major component of most Castle laws Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is moot. The criteria are still OR. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking for reasonable cleanup. AfD is not cleanup however: what you ask can be dealt with editing, not deletion, thus it is an invalid rationale, per deletion policy. --Cyclopiatalk 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not include accidental shootings, because that is a different topic. We also don't include cases of consensual relationships in the list of rapes. Is that a POV issue? An individual article does not need to represent all facets of a topic, if it is about a specific facet. The hypothetical example you propose is a worthy topic on its own though. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, assuming the existence of a list of rapes, we absolutely would include cases of "consensual relationships" (because if one doesn't consent to sex, it's still rape, even if one is married or in a relationship). What we wouldn't include = instances of consensual sex. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it's about the basic definition of the list inclusion criteria. Take another look at what LegoTech is saying: that many instances of gun use which were intended for the defense of self or another, and which therefore are "defensive gun use incidents," didn't have the intended result of deterring an attacker while keeping non-attackers safe. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm staying with delete. Original research as the choice was made to include off duty cops as if they put their training and experience in their locker along with the uniform. Its a random set of incidents that match the point the creator is trying to prove. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The police exclusion is not WP:OR if you read the criteria from the studies I copied below, they specifically exclude "Police work". I reworded the criteria to be clear as they meant (based on other content of those studies) but it is most definitely NOT wp:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


So, you want to keep the article because you feel the nomination was not in good faith? You've provided no evidence of that. Please address the issues raised in the nomination. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is off-topic and has no place here. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ah no it isn't, mr/s i-have-a-PhD-and-want-all-to-know-it. if it weren't on the topic, i wouldn't have added it here. your quibble reeks of POV. and believe me, as a really POV person at times, i know POV when i see it. we probably agree on a lot of things, since i'm (according to critics) really obviously way out in left field. fine. i'm not going to repeat my reasons for being nervous about deleting this. they're above for all to see. cheers.Cramyourspam (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cramyourspam, please keep civil. --Cyclopiatalk 13:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. Addressing the nominator's view that the article is POV, I would argue it is more POV to delete the article. The absence of the article would seem to imply a lack of defensive uses for guns. -- Jwinters | Talk 21:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's why I have diligently added cases of slaves being shot in self-defense, the concept of self-defense in the United States is clearly tied to the killing of many unruly slaves who seemed not to realize they were property without any rights.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

This is copied from the prior AFD. These are the quotes from several of the studies used as sources in the article thus far, and the criteria used by those studies. The studies' criteria closly match the criteria for inclusion used by the article.

*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

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria that you have developed for the list may be based on the above research, but it isn't close to being identical. This non-trivial criteria for inclusion is what makes it WP:OR. Developing the criteria further to keep the list from being huge just marches further along the OR path. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Defensive" wording is directly from reliable sources discussing the topic. Other places has less defensive gun use, so its not surprising that the article is America centric. Other places don't play gridiron football much either is that a WP:WORLDVIEW problem? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are making up criteria that are not part of the list. There is no "No bystanders were harmed" criteria AND no "successful" criteria. The reason such incidents are not included is... because the editors have not found any yet. I do not deny that there are cases (many cases?) when people use guns to harm people - but those aren't defensive gun uses. Make a list of "shootings where self defense claims were rejected" For example Jesus C. Gonzalez would be a great addition to such a list. "Defensive gun use" even with your hypothetical cherry picked criteria - is still a notable topic. It is discussed in many books, articles, studies. It deserves an article. Negative aspects of gun usage also deserve articles. Go make them. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More