Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was keep; anthonycfc [talk] 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms

Page is designed not to advance wikipedia's articles on guns, but rather as a mechanism for pro-gun editors to find eachother for disruptive POV editing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And the evidence for this extremely serious charge is...? Kirill Lokshin 22:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Project_scope, along with the sucessful calls to POV warriors put out by User:Kevinp2 and User:Yaf. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion doesn't seem particularly unacceptable (holding opinions is not forbidden, nor is discussing them; and those project members who were unusually vocal here were quite thoroughly provoked); and I'm not sure what the successful calls you're referring to might be. Kirill Lokshin 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You will note directly below one of the members of the project admits that is is a rally point for pro-gun editors - this is not acceptable. The successful calls to POV war are at Joyce Foundation and Gun violence. If the project pledges to limit itself to article about guns, and not about gun politics, and does so, I will withdraw this request. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't put words in my mouth, sir. I simply asked if you would do the same were it a call to support your POV. I am not speaking for the rest of the project, only myself, and my intention is to write and edit articles based on firearms, ammunition, and their use based upon reliable sources. I would say that is why most people join a project, out of interest or knowledge of the subject matter.--Mike Searson 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
In any case, I'm not seeing any "calls to POV war"—successful or otherwise—for either article (although I do note that Hipocrite himself appears to be engaged in a long-term editing dispute on one of them). So keep until some actual evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the project as a whole (or at least a substantial proportion of its members) is produced. Kirill Lokshin 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - this is a brand-new project and this nomination for deletion is based on one proposal by one editor to include certain topics that the rest of the group has not decided upon. Would this proposal for deletion be brought up if the project was a rally point for anti-gun editors? --Mike Searson 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Is there one of those I can nominate for deletion? Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I was speaking hypothetically, friend. --Mike Searson 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out Kevinp2 is not a member of the project.
On another note I've never been sure if gun politics was a good thing for us to get into, due to the fact that there is so much contention. I will talk to the members of the project and see what they think.--LWF 23:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this is a POV war between Hipocrite and 2 other editors. What do they call it when someone blames an entire group for the actions of a few? --Mike Searson 23:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Guilt by association. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 00:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not a member of this project and stumbled across it last week when I was looking for info on .380 ACP. I am presently involved in a dispute with Hipocrite on the Joyce Foundation which I submitted for mediation. I posted the single question on this project's talk page: Does the Joyce Foundation fall with the scope of this project? (Incidentally, my own preference would be that it not). For this single question, Hipocrite leaps to the conclusion that I am calling for reinforcements from my "POV warrior friends" and nominates this entire project for deletion!!! Hipocrite has continually hurled insult after insult at me through this dispute, which I have refrained from responding to, and appears to be doing the same to the members of this project. I am going through the mediation process on the Joyce Foundation and am not involved with this firearms project. However, if you are hoping to obtain civil behavior from Hipocrite, you may be in for quite a wait. Kevinp2 01:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

All of it, and maybe even some items I didn't think of. For my part, I do not let my staunch pro-gun stance cloud my ability to be NPOV. And I expect the same of other project members. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 00:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel I should note (given my rather brutal tone) that I would certainly concede to concensus about the project scope. I just don't feel the project should be limited to just hardware. There's MUCH more to firearms besides shooting. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 00:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've joined this project, as I'm interested in the topic, but can't think of one time I've used it to push POV (please post diffs where you feel I have) or been influenced to edit based on any other member. The "scope" issues in the nomination were from the talk page asking "I'm wondering if we should expand" the project scope, not a declaration of its requirement. — xaosflux Talk 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep -- Project has greatly improved many articles related to firearms, which previously had been a largely-neglected backwater topic on WP. It appears that there is a lack of Assume good faith by the nominating party. As for listing Gun violence as a new article, and adding a Project tagline to it, I do not consider this a call to anyone for any purpose other than to improve a new article related to firearms on Wikipedia. Yaf 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep -- We have in fact improved articles on guns, and I have never seen people call for aid on enforcing their POV. By the way, it should be noted that even if politics is removed from our scope, any member who is interested can still edit sections on politics. Also, by accusing the project as simply being a means to gather "POV warriors" you accuse me of violating wikipedia policy, and being uncivil and unwilling to compromise. Which is very insulting to me.--LWF 01:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep verging on Strong - (disclaimer- project member) - I have not seen any politicization or focus on gun politics issues at all, though I'm not watching all the corners or all the people by any means. I see no sign that any specific instances or allegedly targeted articles are being listed here or elsewhere. Lacking any diffs or pointers to where alleged abuses are taking place, and from my experience, I conclude that the claim is specious. If Hipocrite would like to provide evidence I would review it and reconsider. But this clearly seems to be cart-before-horse. If there's a problem, provide evidence, start a RFC, let's work on it. Deleting the project when most of the gun articles are so bad right now seems like a terrible idea... it's clearly needed. Most of the articles have no specs, little context, no pictures, etc. Evidence please. Georgewilliamherbert 02:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep All I see here is one angry person disagreeing with the content of Wikipedia and attempting to meter his feelings on the whole of Wikipedia. If this was an accepted tactic, there would be no Wikipedia. Like many members of the said "deletable" project, I am flexible as to the scope of the project, but deletion is absolutely uncalled for. We cannot allow a single content dispute with no evidence to back it up command the collective interest. JVkamp 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless we're going to delete every Wikiproject on the basis that POV warriors can use it to their advantage. -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep (disclaimer: new project member). I have neither seen any instance of a systematic bias nor any evidence to support the proponent's accusations of "disruptive POV editing". I would also like to point out that there is a difference between having an opinion and pushing an agenda: firearm enthusiasts (ie. those most familiar with the subject matter at hand) often tend to be supporters of the 2nd amendment, just like journalists are inherently supportive of the 1st amendment. That does, however, not make the serious allegations leveled against the project true. --Seed 2.0 08:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I note that there is already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force with 58 listed members. It seems to me that the two groups are mutually redundant, and that it would make sense for the smaller group, this one, to merge into the larger, better organized task force. Can anyone give me any good reason for the continuation of this project as a separate entity? John Carter 16:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Not all firearms are military weapons. Hunting rifles, for example would be well-outside the scope of the Military Project as would semi-automatic equivalents of military style rifles and a majority of the world's handguns. --Mike Searson 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI, it appears that Hipocrite, the author of this deletion request has retired from Wikipedia. This leaves my unrelated dispute and mediation with him in an uncertain state. However, since he was the only person to request that this Firearms Project be deleted, and everyone else objected, it is likely safe to assume that this deletion request can be retired as well. Kevinp2 02:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - looked at the project page, didn't find too much incriminating material. Appears to be a plausible topic for a WikiProject. Can be merged to other WikiProjects if there's seriously overlapping goals. (Darn, I've often chanted that AfD is not Cleanup®, maybe I should start chanting MfD is not Mediation™...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, we can not be rerasonably merged into the weaponry task force of Milhist, it would overstep their bounds. Since most firearms are not used by any military they can't really cover them and make policy for them, since those arms are civilian. We cover both military and civilian firearms.--LWF 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This project has plenty of room for improvement, and has a wide potential role. Definitely keep. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, was about to vote (weak) delete due to the apparent duplication of effort between WP:GUNS and WP:WEAPON but after realising the difference from the above comment I'm abstaining. However there does still appear to be a great degree of similarity and I feel it would be to their benefit if the scope was shifted slightly to avoid undue duplications of effort. Mathmo Talk 07:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Duplication of what effort I wonder. Seems to me that two projects with eyes on a given article naturally focuses more attention on the article, which is a good thing. WP:GUNS with an eye on the civilian angle, and WP:MILHIST with an eye on the military side of things. To my mind the elevated scrutiny can only end in a better article. The only real "duplication of effort" would come from competeing quality rating systems. But even that only results in even more scrutiny and a better article. For example, a B rating from one group and a C rating from another would (should?) automatically cause some questions to be raised, an ensuing debate, and hammering out of the issues. Again, this results in a better article instead of allowing the article to languish as firearms articles historically have on WP. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 07:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll note I did consider basically what you said, and in the end I didn't vote even a weak delete. Mathmo Talk 07:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Good WikiProject providing useful information on an important topic. The public policy debate is utterly irrelevant to the value of having accurate information regarding the topic addressed. bd2412 T 11:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Besides covering military and not civilian firearms, the Weaponry task force also apparently covers pre-gunpowder weapons and heavy weaponry like artillery and explosives, making their focus much more diffuse. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:35, 11 March 2007 (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.