Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun myths in popular culture

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. There are some good ideas about how to improve the content and renaming the article - I suggest trying these, and if no improvement can be made, resubmit it to AFD. Proto ► 12:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Gun myths in popular culture

Gun myths in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• DeleteThis article is a mindless collection of 'myths' and 'proof' against these myths. In fact, it is nothing more than a discussion forum akin to a gun show debate. It is virtually all unsupportable and lacks any encyclopedic value. --Asams10 14:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There is no need for spottily referenced remarks to myths that would be better off in a gun enthusiast's website. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 17:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are only 2 citations for the hundreds of miscellaneous factoids used. It seems to be all original research and the subject itself is not notable. Some of the facts should probably be spread around into relavent articles, like the lack of a hammer originating in the Colt Hammerless. It's a list of loosely associated topics laid out in an FAQ format. --JJLatWiki 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, except there were dozens of hammerless and shrouded hammer firearms made before the Colt "hammerless" series. And BOTH of the citations are incorrect. The 44 Magnum was not the most powerful handugn in the world, even when it was first introduced. The AK-47 is not proved accurate at 300 meters when the US Army says it provides "Effective automatic fire out to 300 meters."--Asams10 06:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I really would like this content to be available on Wikipedia, but I have to agree with the original poster. I've seen this content elsewhere, which suggests that it might be a big copyvio anyway. --Mdwyer 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. There are plenty of other articles on this site similar to this article. The content is useful and mostly accurate. Citations should be used and NPOV enforced. I am willing to help with this. Jrkarp 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• "There are plenty of other articles on this site similar to this article" is another way of saying WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and cannot justify the existence of this or any other article. Otto4711 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of the information is incorrect. The first thing that's incorrect is the 'myth' status. Many of these 'myths' are merely political claims and anti-gun propoganda. Some of the 'debunking' is also incorrect. For instance, a 50 caliber Barrett is more than capable of taking down an airliner, although I'll not go into detail for obvious reasons.--Asams10 06:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I was looking at nominating this one myself. Otto4711 23:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep . I do not feel that the subject matter is inappropriate, but rather that the article itself is somewhat poor. Articles that are not up to par should not be an automatic reason for deletion when the subject matter is still useful. nrw 15:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wrong forum. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 04:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Asams, there is no reason why this article should be deleted. There's a lot of controversy as to what is original research and what is common knowledge. I myself can testify that I've heard people believe in these gun myths and that the proof against the myths is reasonable and factual. Plus, there is plenty of room for improvement, just like every article here started out with it's (often times major) flaws. RavenStorm 18:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reasons included so far: Uncited original research, list of loosely associated topics, essentially an FAQ, inappropriate for wikipedia. In response to your "controversy" over OR vs common knowledge, I submit to you that the article is rife with non-common knowledge that is not cited, ie "Only the rare Glock 17 Mariner variant... allows safe firing underwater". Your testimonial contribution to the article would amount to original research. I would also suggest that if you move facts to a relavent article, like the Glock 17 Mariner's ability to safely fire under water, and remove insignificant trivia like the fact that some video games will not allow the M1 Garand to be reloaded mid-clip, what you'll be left with doesn't justify the rest of the article. It becomes even more a list of trivia, which implies "interesting without being notable". --JJLatWiki 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think it's notable indeed that the M1 Garand can be reloaded mid-clip. Also, you have to take things into context... when the article talked about the Glock 17 Mariner's ability to fire underwater, it was using it as an example to show that some (although not all) guns can fire underwater. Anyways, I gave the article a massive clean-up... so please, take another look at it, I removed as much useless information as I could. RavenStorm 22:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Who ever said that the Garand can't be reloaded mid-clip? It's in the manual how to do it. There's already mention in the Garand article of this very fact. The Glock 17 requires only a modified firing pin to fire underwater, but who ever said it could or couldn't? Where's the myth. Where are the references that say that knowledgeable people every said it was a myth? We can go item by item rebuking of all of this crap, but it'll take a while. You bring up what's worthwile, then make sure it's duplicated elsewhere so the article can be deleted without losing that content which you can show is useful, factual, and encyclopedic.--Asams10 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Article needs better referencing but that alone isn't reason to delete. Dragomiloff 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Re-name and re-classifiy to Firearm Myths in Media: By removing certain myths and adding others, as well as re-writing some of the information in this article, I believe it would be an excellent way to add on to the firearms article. Instead of being a trivial list, the newly-named Firearm Myths in Media would comply with Wikipedia's standards. All in favor? RavenStorm 01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Renaming it does not change the nature of the article. It's still a collection of trivia with zero encyclopedic value. You can't take what is in this article and make another article out of it. Virtually everything here is unsupportable. Whether you like or value the information, Wikipedia is not a place for what ammounts to a firearms forum.--Asams10 03:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the "re-name and re-classify" suggestion. Eventually you'll have to rename it "Mistakes, misconceptions, and myths about firearms in the media". But why is it notable? I haven't searched for it, but is there an article called "Automobile myths in the media" that debunks the myth that cars will fly through the air as if from a ramp instead of slamming into a parked car, and debunking the myth that the wires that cause the starter to crank when hotwiring a car should be twisted together after the car starts? That's trivia, which by definition is not notable. Does "interesting" transform "trivia"? --JJLatWiki 04:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Why should it still be worth zero encyclopedic value? I really hate to use the old "but x article has it" procedure, but there are PLENTY of articles that branch off and have their own trivia or "in the media" page (look at Middle-earth in popular culture or Hitler in popular culture). I don't see why Firearms should be any different! If we remove everything EXCEPT myths that have been specifically used in movies, video games and other forms of media, then it is no longer a trivial, unfounded list, it is something notable about firearms. Listen, all I'm really trying to do here is solve the problems you guys have been complaining about instead of removing the article outright. RavenStorm 12:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, there are plenty of other articles that have their "trivia" or "...in popular culture" sections split off. Usually that happens because the trivia section is ridiculously long and the people who maintain the article think that splitting the garbage information off into its own article will give the people who want to add every instance where Hitler flashes past on a TV screen a place to dump it. A great number of those sorts of garbage dump articles are being deleted, and even if they weren't, as I noted previously the existence of another article or even batch of articles is not justification for this one. Otto4711 14:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • These facts aren't notable about firearms. They're only tangentially related to firearms. They're generally trivia specifically related to movies, television, and video games, where there are an infinite number of other mistakes and misconceptions and misuse of many, many things, including firearms. Maybe there should be an article called "Trivial mistakes made in movies, television, and video games", with "Firearms" as a sub-section. Then you could include facts like: cars don't explode upon being shot by a .357 Magnum as seen in Dirty Harry (is that a car myth or a firearms myth?), and a still photograph can not be scanned into a computer in order to zoom from a wide shot of 5 people to see a reflection of the photographer in the eyes of the 5 subjects of the photograph as seen in CSI (is that a photography myth or a computer myth?). --JJLatWiki 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • So we prune and merge it to the firearms article or just plain delete this? Ravenstorm 15:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete as this stands it is almost entirely unsourced, OR and even if sources could be found it would be an unencyclopedic collection of mistakes made in movies. Eluchil404 07:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others. (At the very least, "myths" is POV and must be removed.) Bucketsofg 14:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The information is encyclopedic and, if it is properly reformated and rewritten with a reasonable attempt at citing sources, an unconventional and informative colluction of uncommon knowledge about a very misunderstood subject that is socially important. I think the focus should move away from references to individual sources or movies unless that has caused a widespread misconception (like the "Glock 7" issue). Additionally, the argument about the M1 Garand further up and it's appearance in multiple games is an illustration of how these myths (or misinformations) tend to exhibit themselves. Deathbunny 04:20, 2 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.