Deletion of List of defensive gun use incidents (2nd nomination)

Comment: absurd concept, cannot possibly cover the millions of "defensive" incidents, inherently POV due to non-neutral wording "defensive", lacks  and seems to be related to POV-pushing about US American gun laws/rights/whatever, totally bogus notion for article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:WORLDVIEW)

Comment: WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply. In the worst case, it should be rewritten as Defensive gun use. AFD is . CallawayRox (talk)  Still applies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: one of the least compelling arguments from the "keep" side is "this might be the only list of its kind". That's the definition of |original research, which is |what Wikipedia is not. It's not our job to compile the first ever list of defensive gun incidents. Let alone a list that is impossible (not hard -- literally impossible) to populate with any verifiability and accuracy. Just look at the mess of the inclusion criteria. "Yes this, except when it's that, except when this or that." Particularly the part about how we have to go into the legal system to decide whether an act of gun violence was an act of self-defense, or an act of murder. It's as impossible to maintain as "list of motor vehicle accidents" or "list of people who have slipped and fallen on icy sidewalks". This AFD has become a magnet for canvassing by the pro-gun lobby. But so I'm not accused of being a shill for the other side, I will also add this: there IS an encyclopedic topic to be made about defensive gun use, and the number of lives saved by defense. But the way to do that is to write an article with statistics, instead of trying to make it into a list of individual anecdotes. For a phenomenon of this frequency, statistical data would be the only accurate way to represent it. Anecdotes are highly prone to undue weight (in favor or opposed). So in the alternative to deletion, I would support a wholesale rewrite
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: Although I am a huge Second Amendment supporter, this list is more of a newspaper than an article and we know that Wikipedia is . These are merely random events thown onto a list with a questionable inclusion criteria. A brief glance also shows some BLP concerns when we start making statements like "John Doe broke into a house and Steve Homeowner used a firearm
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Nom rationale is nonsense. That the list is not complete is a very silly deletion rationale, also |AfD is not for cleanup. The topic the list is about is https://www.google.com/search?q=defensive+gun+use&btnG=Cerca+nei+libri&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=it#hl=it&safe=off&tbo=d&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22defensive+gun+use%22&oq=%22defensive+gun+use%22&gs_l=serp.3...3630.4198.1.4650.2.2.0.0.0.0.95.188.2.2.0.pchatac..0.0...1.1.enn1inZocOY&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355325884,d.bGE&fp=18c8fbfac65a1e74&bpcl=39967673&biw=1535&bih=787 clearly notable, entries are referenced and there are well defined inclusion criteria. All in all not only a list compliant to policies, but a good one at that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: AFD was just completed 4 months ago.  The overall topic is discussed in numerous studies, books and articles, and far surpasses any notability bar. Incomplete lists are very common in wikipedia, we have a template specifically to address the issues inherent with them. That this is one such list is not a reason to delete.  The criteria for inclusion in the list are neutral, and in close alignment with the criteria used by the various studies and books on the topic. that individual entries are not notable is again an explicitly intended use of lists on wikipedia per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTESAL||WP:CSC)

Comment: as violating . What a cheerful cherry-picked list of gun brandishings. Both the list entries demonstrate and the inclusion criteria seem intended to choose incidents in which defensive gun use: 1) was successful, 2) was deemed justified, and 3) no bystanders were harmed. Out of the defensive gun uses each year in the U.S. alone (2.5 million according to pro-gun activists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz; 108,000 in 2008 according to the FBI, each a potential entry), the list of entries (as of this date stamp) doesn't include a single case in which a bystander or other innocent was killed or injured by the defensive shooter. The list and the sources from Cato ("The bottom line is that gun owners stop a lot of criminal mayhem every year.") and the RedditDGU ("...dedicated to cataloging incidents in the United States where legally-owned guns are used to deter or stop violent crime") seem intended to promote the idea that defensive gun use is entirely a positive thing. In truth, defensive shootings are sometimes unsuccessful (Cato's ''Tough Target'' pdf, pg 3; http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=470871&highlight=open+carry, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/metro/view/20091030-233116/Businessman-killed-with-own-gun-by-intruder), unjustified (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-09-28/story/connecticut-man-kills-masked-teen-discovers-he-shot-his-own-son, http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jurors-acquit-homeowner-of-college-student-s-1685756.php) and messy (http://johnsoncitypress.com/News/article.php?id=102641, http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2018312372_folklifeshooting30m.html). This is a case of advocacy and framing the argument unfairly. Failing delete, '''Move''' to to the more accurate namespace List of defensive gun use incidents which were successful and justified
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: Gaijin invited me to comment here as a past editor of the article (I corrected a few typos with AWB). It appears to me a long list of miscellaneous, nonnotable events, covered under . The current form of the list also seems designed as a long pamphlet for gun rights. We don't have List of gun killings by criminals or List of accidental shootings of children by gunowners
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: I have notified all of those that commented on the previous AFD of this discussion (except for pbp as he is already involved here), as well as those who have edited the article in question. I believe this does not violate  as I notified all, regardless of they way they !voted, but I am putting it here just to avoid confusion etc
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: It seems to me that it would be very desirable to have some sources that address the topic of listing past defensive gun use ''as a whole'', rather than compiling a list of one-off news reports.  As it currently stands, I think the article is verging on , and that is an issue that needs addressing.  I do not think the "criteria" section below is an adequate remedy, since it suggests that Wikipedia editors will be judging which news reports to include based on criteria studies of defensive gun use in various&mdash;well, that's practically the definition of synthesis.  (What would we say: "This incident would be considered a defensive use based on the criteria in ''blah'', but not ''blah''"?!)  If we can find reliable secondary sources that list defensive uses of guns in the past, then we can cite those ''and'' reference the primary source literature (news reports).  If we can't, then the article should probably be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: Tone's always tricky online, so please read this question in a curious voice rather than an argumentative one: if this is ultimately kept, would the "Keep" votes here also support a referenced List of accidental shootings, List of armed robberies, and List of gun murders? What bothers me most here is that we're cataloguing one type of gun incident that's not more obviously notable than any other, save that it supports a specific POV; almost all murders, for example, will have received more coverage than a homeowner chasing off a burglar by firing a handgun (this list's first item). I'd be willing to give a start to the above lists if other editors wouldn't mind and wouldn't consider it ; these seem like the kind of lists that once started, will rapidly be expanded by other editors
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)