Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

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. Note that regardless of the issue of existence of this article, the title appears to be appropriate per Lightbreather's arguments. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

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

This legislation never had a chance to pass and has no inherent notability beyond being another piece of "band-aid legislation" sponsored by a long-time political hack trying to stay relevant. Hundreds of thousands of bills are introduced in Congress, and not even most of the ones that pass are considered notable. Allowing this article to exist as written creates NPOV and coatrack problems in a controversial and problematic area. I was in favor of a larger piece about "Gun Control in the Wake of Sandy Hook" or something similar with this included, but not as a stand-alone article. The title is misleading as there was no Federal Ban enacted in 2013. This is not newsworthy or notable. I tried to resolve this, along with several others against a very determined editor who means well, but does not see the bigger picture. Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am the editor who created the article. I started it just three days ago. While I was out to lunch today, two editors decided to rename [1] and reorganize [2] it, which may be Wiki "legal," but I hope it's not considered WP:CIVIL. I gave numerous reasons on the talk page about why the topic is worthy of its own article [3] (notably WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV), and I gave suggestions [4] for the two other editors about how and where to appropriately share their Sandy Hook shooting related material. Lightbreather (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect LB created this article. LB ALSO chose the scope of this article, including 23 executive orders by Obama, including alternate proposals by the NRA, including state law changes, including polling about gun control. In her most recent revision after the kerfuffle, she has removed most of that. redirect to Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or Federal_assault_weapons_ban#Efforts_to_renew_the_ban or Reactions_to_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting as all of this content is intrinsically linked, and keeping it by itself is an unneeded WP:CFORK, and the extra hangers on (AWB + the bits that LB likes) is WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:OR that fails WP:NPOV. It was a symbolic gesture during the aftermath of the shooting. That is the context it belongs in. Since the resounding vote against it, it has gained nary a peep in the news and fails the WP:10YT except as part of the shooting - As part of the shooting or gun control reactions to the article, it should recieve WP:DUE coverage as one of the significant parts of that event (which it does do, in the Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article, which consists of content almost entirely written by LB just in an order she doesn't like and with a different WP:TITLE (See this revision, prior to ALL of my edits, that contains almost all of the "expanded article" content [5]) . Also, since there was ongoing discussion about this dispute, including collaboration on an RFC which LB requested, forking this article is a failure of WP:GAME and should be speedily deleted under A10 as it is an exact subset of the other article written by LBGaijin42 (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. There is no rational for separate articles that are substantively about the same topic. The broader approach on this topic is the better one. This can all be folded in quite nicely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect As per above, it seems like that this article is not only a duplication of an existing topic but a source a large amount of disagreement and drama. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 22:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am changing this to keep, the article to which I had originally voted to merge to is a collection of sources banded together into an original research article. While this law did fail it at least has significant coverage and references the actual law, not a collection of laws and news articles. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 20:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG SPEEDY Delete Content fork duplicated per WP:GAME Also, the article is terribly named, and has already been redirected/duplicated to the Sandy Hook version anyway. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin already nominated it for a speedy delete.[6] The admin decided not to [7] and said it was "reasonable split of larger article."

If anything rename the article to be in line with other pieces of US law, this is the original title of the law as proposed and tabled to the senate, http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 20:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the name is the biggest problem. It implies that there was some sort of ban when there was not. This is deception at its finest.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Equal Rights Amendment failed to pass, but we didn't title that article "The failed Equal Rights Amendment" or "Equal Rights Amendment (failed)". Prohibition was repealed, but we didn't title that article "The repealed Prohibition Amendment" or "Prohibition (repealed)". WP:UCN says that "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" is the best name for this article - about AWB 2013. Lightbreather (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth. This topic is nowhere near the scope of the two you mentioned. If you keep repeating a lie, some people will fall for it, but it does not make it any more truthful.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where I put words in your mouth, but I apologize for whatever it was I wrote that seems that way to you. No, AWB 2013 wasn't as big as the ERA or Prohibition, so if they appeared in the same article - say about failed bills and laws - it would receive less weight than those. BUT it was titled and called the Assault Weapons Ban (of 2013) - and more importantly, per it meets the WP:GNG guidelines for a stand-alone article. Lightbreather (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I !voted above, I think the article should be merged, as 100% of this content already exists in the other article. But if it is kept, this title is appropriate. It is the actual title of the bill. The bill failed, but it was a bill with this title. In this small regard, I actually respect Feinstein, as she did not wrap the title of the bill in euphemism or acronym to hide the purpose of the bill and perhaps attempt to gain votes or support that way. Its a ban. She called it a ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point. I am sure you are strictly adhering to the policy and for the record, so is LB. However, my point of contention is the bigger picture. An article's title in this context should reflect the content. Take the 1994 Ban. The actual title of the bill that became law was Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act the actual term in usage at the time was The Crime Bill or Omnibus Crime Bill. Those titles are not truly descriptive of what was more popularly known as The Federal Assault Weapon Ban. In that regard it made sense to use another title. The current title smells of bait and switch or using a cheap hook. This is what journalists do and I have done it on occassion to sell a piece. How many times have you seen a title such as You too can buy surplus jeeps from the government for pennies on the dollar. Hey it sounds good, but what you get is a boring slog of reading through GSA auctions, etc. You feel like you wasted 10 minutes of your time. So is the case here. The reader sees it and says, "Whoah there was an assault weapon ban in 2013?" and after reading they walk away knowing there was no ban, the bill failed and Diane Feinstein didn't go home and slash her wrists or Alec Baldwin didn't leave the country. I guess it depends on whether you want to inform your readers or contribute SEO to the anti-gun camp in google searches or contribute to the overall mentality that wiki is a joke and not to be taken seriously as a source for anything. I'm thinking I'll start a piece on the Guns N' Roses 2015 reunion tour that will never happen.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I did. I said to myself "Whoa! There was an assault weapon ban in 2013? HOW DID I MISS THAT?" Then I felt like I had just given a carnie too many tickets for a ride. Bah. 100% of the info in this article is duplicated anyway. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that everyone who is voting here, in addition to reading the above, is checking in on the progress of the development of these two, separate articles.

Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has the potential to become a very large article.
Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 is significant in its own right, and is definitely still "peeped" about since it was defeated this time last year. It came up after the Navy Yard shooting, and after the LAX shooting, and after the recent Fort Hood shooting. It will continue to do so after these shootings - just as AWB 1994 continued to come up after it expired, and continues to come up to this day.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The potential of an article to become a very large article means nothing, my thesis is a very large piece of writing, doesn't mean it belongs here. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 20:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I hear you on that. You're talking about the "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" article, right? If so, I agree with you on that, but I was willing to work on it with the other editors who wanted it. But I still think AWB 2013 is notable in its own right for a stand-alone article. Yes it was a bill that did not pass, but it got a heckuva lot of press at the time, and continues to pop up after post-Newtown mass shootings. Lightbreather (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean "development of these two, seperate, IDENTICAL articles?" --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable in its own right--relevant to more than Sandy Hook. Suitable for also as an expansion of the relevant section in the other article, an the articles should be edited to reflect that. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DGG. My feelings exactly, and exactly why I created it. Shouldn't new material be added to this, main "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" article before it is added elsewhere?

For instance, there is a Proposed assault weapons ban (AWB 2013) section in the "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" article. And there is also a good-sized paragraph about it in the Efforts to renew the ban section of the federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994) article. And a Failed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 section in the Assault weapon article. And it's mentioned in the Assault weapons ban section of the Dianne Feinstein article.

My understanding of Wikipedia best-practice (and that of traditional encyclopedias, too) is that these other articles should have similar, brief (who, what, when, where, why) summaries about AWB 2013 and links to the more in-depth article. Am I missing something? Lightbreather (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2014 (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.