- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Shooting ranges in the United States
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Shooting ranges in the United States ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not believe this article is notable per GNG. At point of creation, it was very much a guide. It developed into a directory of ranges ( WP:NOTADIRECTORY). Since "Cleanup", it now largely continues to duplicate the content of Shooting range, or else provides advice on costs and etiquette ( WP:NOTAGUIDE). Whilst mindful that Content does not determine Notability, I see no evidence that this topic is actually notable or distinct from the main article. What is distinct about Shooting Ranges in the United States compared with anywhere else? Since 2006, no one has found a US-specific angle to build the article around. I would propose MERGING, but I don't think there's anything in there worth adding to the Shooting range article. The article has had Multiple Issues flagged since 2014, and aside from the fact that nobody has fixed them, I'm honestly not sure it is possible to fix them - because the topic isn't notable. Consequently it has become a dusty corner full of unreferenced pearls of wisdom and anecdotal best practice. There are certainly notable ranges within the US (which deserve their own article, and can be grouped in "Category:Shooting Ranges in the United States"), but I do not believe that the general case of "Shooting Ranges in the United States is distinct or notable in its own right, or can be usefully written about in an encyclopaedic fashion. Hemmers ( talk) 11:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Much of the deleted content can be reintegrated back into the article. You deleted much of the content that made it relevant to the US, then claimed it was no longer relevant. Its a relevant split as the entire shooting range article would be filled with US relevant info. Also the cost of shooting, renting firearms vs bringing your own, your own does make it relevant to the US and is a big factor, that isn't a guide thing. That's encyclopedic information.
DarmaniLink (
talk)
12:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- changed my mind on the costs section, that bit was unsalvageable. The rest of the article should however stand, as a split for the shooting range article. DarmaniLink ( talk) 12:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Obviously I would gently disagree, although I'm glad to see we have consensus on the issues over "Cost of Shooting" which is a ludicrously unverifiable section when referring to the entire USA! If I see a dollar sign anywhere in the article, I'm probably going to delete it. It's inherently unrepresentative of the US as a whole, will age horribly with inflation and is probably incompatible with WP:NOTAGUIDE (and this is assuming it's referenced to begin with).
- But more broadly I don't see how sections such as:
- The largest problem currently with outdoor ranges is the lack of sufficient area behind and beside the impact berms. This area, usually called the Surface Danger Zone (SDZ), is a fan-shaped area that extends lengthwise to the ultimate ballistic distance of the round fired. Outdoor ranges often use baffles to contain fired rounds within the range, and, with proper design can reduce the surface danger zone area. Guidelines for surface danger zones vary widely.
- Have anything to do with Shooting in the United States. Baffles are common to ranges globally. Range design is constrained by physics and ballistics - these are not distinguishing features which make US Ranges special. And of course it's entirely uncited. Rinse and repeat for... most of the article.
- I would also note with reference to this edit message:
- "this isn't promo unless you think there's a US gun range conspiracy run by a $5B range chain in texas to mom and pops back alley shack where you shoot bottles".
- I don't think there is a conspiracy. I think the problem is that this article does not address a notable topic and is therefore looking for a gap to fill. Consequently, every mom-and-pop shop feels like they want to stick in their little bit of local wisdom. Which is why the content is of a very poor standard, and almost entirely unreferenced. Lines such as "to help one to easily learn use of any rental firearm in just a few minutes." read like a promotion (
WP:ADVOCACY), even if they're not advertising a specific business or location. Such language is advocating for the concept of rental ranges generally and advertising their services. Which is not encyclopaedic.
Hemmers (
talk)
13:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- The wording could definitely be improved as it seems verbatum from a gun range's pamphlet, but I wouldn't say its conceptually advocacy or promo. Lets continue this on the talk page so we don't clog this DarmaniLink ( talk) 13:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Much of the deleted content can be reintegrated back into the article. You deleted much of the content that made it relevant to the US, then claimed it was no longer relevant. Its a relevant split as the entire shooting range article would be filled with US relevant info. Also the cost of shooting, renting firearms vs bringing your own, your own does make it relevant to the US and is a big factor, that isn't a guide thing. That's encyclopedic information.
DarmaniLink (
talk)
12:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - To be clear, I really, really don't like this subject or this article. The Anglosphere's recent obsession/lovefest with firearms is a disease. That said, the article's main problem is lack of RS and that, at least, can be remedied. American English has an entire universe of RS about shooting ranges. Sources and a thorough rewrite leaves an encyclopaedic article that enhances Wikipedia. Cheers,
Last1in (
talk)
00:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your feedback! I agree about the obsession. But the presence of American English RS doesn’t justify a US-specific article though? Unless they cover something specific and unique to Shooting ranges in the United States. Things like range design are founded in ballistics and physics. Which are literally universal. I’m not seeing anything “us-specific” that justifies a US article. Any American English RS about shooting ranges is likely to apply equally to French or Indian ranges. Which is emphasised by the reaction to this AfD, which has been to try and shoehorn in generalised information about gun laws in California/US states (which doesn’t even relate directly to ranges). No one seems to be able to find a notable US-specific angle or explain what value this article could or should provide over and above the basic Shooting range article. Hemmers ( talk) 18:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- "Anglosphere"? This is a USA phenomenon. Other anglophone countries -- Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa ... -- don't have the obsession with guns that Americans have. It's not so "recent", either. Anyway, delete: the article is of no interest to people outside the USA.
Athel cb (
talk)
09:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is so much factually wrong with that comment, but let's start with the idea that US-focused articles are somehow bad. There is no policy that I know of that discourages US-specific articles opposed to those specific to other counties. Articles about
Shooting ranges in Norway and
Switzerland are perfect encyclopaedic, so why can't this one be improved just as easily? On the idea that
the article is of no interest to people outside the USA
, we have around a hundred-thousand articles on CDPs, a concept of a "locale" so small that the subject doesn't even qualify as a village. With US gun madness on the global news about once a week, you think that people are more interested in Bartlett, Iowa than in US gun ranges? Now, as for the idea that gun obsession in the Anglosphereis a USA phenomenon
, you might want to read the news outside the US and UK. Oh, Canada has the fourth highest rate of gun ownership on the planet. Australia would still be giving the US a run for its money if it hadn't been for Port Arthur. If we exclude Latin American countries, South Africa currently has the third highest gun-death rate in the world, and the leader is Eswatini (also part of the Anglosphere) article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 16:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is so much factually wrong with that comment, but let's start with the idea that US-focused articles are somehow bad. There is no policy that I know of that discourages US-specific articles opposed to those specific to other counties. Articles about
Shooting ranges in Norway and
Switzerland are perfect encyclopaedic, so why can't this one be improved just as easily? On the idea that
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Easily passes
WP:GNG. Didn't think I'd ever see an article about America and guns nominated for deletion in part because there's nothing special about the subject in this country. In addition to research about ranges in relation to the larger subject of simply guns in the US, there are
articles about the culture of shooting ranges,
biases in shooting ranges, etc. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
15:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- See, this here is the hurdle that I'm struggling to get past. People are saying "ah well, it's adjacent to firearms in the US, and must therefore be notable because guns and america". But there's no evidence of that. Shooting culture and politics is already well covered - there's an article for "Gun laws in <state>" for basically every US state. Plus summary articles like Gun politics in the United States, Gun law in the United States or Gun laws in the United States by state. But a shooting range is a geographical place or amenity. Put aside the politics... what is unique about shooting ranges in the US? Nada (other than being quite a lot of them). There are indoor 25m ranges and 1000yard outdoor ranges. There are 10metre airgun ranges. These are similar to ranges you will find around the world. What is so distinct about a 10m ISSF-compliant airgun range in the US that makes it sufficiently different from one in Germany, the UK or China that those distinctions meet GNG? Or a 25m pistol range? It's like having an article "9mm ammunition in the United States".
- You raise an interesting point on broader culture... but... there's an article for that ( Gun culture in the United States). Likewise anti-muslim biases in US shooting ranges is extremely notable... but is really just a very specific case of Racism in the United States and/or Islamophobia in the United States.
- Someone will probably come along and accuse me of bludgeoning the conversation in a bit. But for all the people saying it's "obviously GNG", nobody seems able to add good, quality encyclopaedic content that isn't a guide or a list of businesses!
Hemmers (
talk)
16:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- The general consensus is "it's notable, but the current state of the article sucks." It's not that a lot of people are "not able", its "not want". Not everyone spends 40 hours a week editing wikipedia and frankly, i'm not passionate enough about guns, nor do i have the time anymore, to overhaul the article. Either way, the linked sources are about american shooting ranges. DarmaniLink ( talk) 16:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis covering the subject of shooting ranges in the USA please as this is otherwise a discussion devoid of strong policy based argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I've created a source table that Spartaz suggested. It is based on the current sourcing of the article. There isn't much to grasp here, though I'm sure there are more reliable sources our there. Conyo14 ( talk) 22:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://damagefactory.com/yes-foreign-nationals-may-rent-and-shoot-guns/ |  Primary source of a shooting range
|
? no consistent reliable sources say much about this particular location, but it does give an official gov't source | Merely mentions laws regarding rights of foreign nationals
|
✘ No |
| http://nrahuntersrights.org/PlacestoShoot.aspx | ? | unsecured and unregistered site
|
Domain page
|
✘ No |
| https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=30515.&lawCode=PEN | 
|
|
WP:ROUTINE
|
✘ No |
| https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2009/05/18/firingrange/ |
WP:BLOG
|
|
|
✘ No |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. | ||||
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful for those editors arguing for a Keep to review the source table analysis and respond to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per the source table. I won't wade into the gun debate. The USA literally has thousands of shooting ranges, and what's given seems to be no different than shooting ranges elsewhere. You bet your Colt 45 ranges here in Canada are 99% similar to what's described here. Other than being in the USA, I see no reason to have an article about American gun ranges; other than the sheer number of them, I can't see a difference between a range in Canada, Mexico, or the US (to limit ourselves to North America for the source of example). Safety concerns, yes. Most are part of a gun club. So you take out the American bits in the article, and this is just an article about shooting ranges. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Response to table as requested:The topic itself falls under general notability but the article, in its current state, sucks and needs improvement. That has been my stance the whole time. There's already precedent in Shooting ranges in Switzerland Shooting ranges in Norway to have a nation specific shooting range article.
- Currently horrible sourcing and a poorly written article going back to like 2006 doesnt mean the topic itself isn't notable. Rhododendrites posted two links about american specific shooting ranges. here and here.
- There's a ton of news articles and papers on american specific shooting ranges, or which contain a heavy focus on them. This needs to be updated by someone with the time to overhaul it. I do not fall under this catagory, otherwise I would.
- Notable topic, bad article.
DarmaniLink (
talk)
05:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I made another source table to analyze Rhododentrite's sources. Kinda wish someone could provide an example of an academic source, then I could !vote. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
- Rhododentrites additional sources analysis by
Conyo14 (
talk)
06:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC) :
- They talk about gun ranges, yes, but don't differentiate them from any other gun ranges around the world, I think that's the issue. The article wants to talk about it, but only mentions basic facts that apply to any gun range, anywhere.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with that. The NPR article is literally talking about gun ranges in America. The NY Times article is talking about Muslim bias about guns, in the US.
Conyo14 (
talk)
22:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the NPR piece is is about US ranges, and the NYT is as well. The question from a notability standard, though, is whether either of them makes US shooting ranges somehow uniquely notable as opposed to shooting ranges everywhere else. The NYT piece is more about the treatment of Muslims in the US, using shooting ranges as the frame. It's not an invalid point, but it is certainly the weaker of the arguments here. The NPR piece is harder to dismiss. Like
DarmaniLink, I still feel that the problem here is the sourcing, not the subject. I have to admit, though, that
Oaktree b and
Hemmers's points are making it a much more difficult decision. Cheers,
Last1in (
talk)
22:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with that. I cannot decide whether this article should be kept or deleted. I'm more for a no consensus on this. Conyo14 ( talk) 23:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the NPR piece is is about US ranges, and the NYT is as well. The question from a notability standard, though, is whether either of them makes US shooting ranges somehow uniquely notable as opposed to shooting ranges everywhere else. The NYT piece is more about the treatment of Muslims in the US, using shooting ranges as the frame. It's not an invalid point, but it is certainly the weaker of the arguments here. The NPR piece is harder to dismiss. Like
DarmaniLink, I still feel that the problem here is the sourcing, not the subject. I have to admit, though, that
Oaktree b and
Hemmers's points are making it a much more difficult decision. Cheers,
Last1in (
talk)
22:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with that. The NPR article is literally talking about gun ranges in America. The NY Times article is talking about Muslim bias about guns, in the US.
Conyo14 (
talk)
22:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- They talk about gun ranges, yes, but don't differentiate them from any other gun ranges around the world, I think that's the issue. The article wants to talk about it, but only mentions basic facts that apply to any gun range, anywhere.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.npr.org/2013/01/31/170391799/are-shooting-ranges-the-new-bowling-alleys | NPR
|
NPR
|
Literally about gun ranges
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/07/us/muslim-gun-owners-america.html | A couple of interviews, but don't speak for the majority of owners
|
NY Times
|
~ Mostly routine mentions about gun stores and Muslim bias, not much on the ranges themselves, but still partial. | ~ Partial |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. | ||||
- 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.
- 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Shooting ranges in the United States
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Shooting ranges in the United States ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not believe this article is notable per GNG. At point of creation, it was very much a guide. It developed into a directory of ranges ( WP:NOTADIRECTORY). Since "Cleanup", it now largely continues to duplicate the content of Shooting range, or else provides advice on costs and etiquette ( WP:NOTAGUIDE). Whilst mindful that Content does not determine Notability, I see no evidence that this topic is actually notable or distinct from the main article. What is distinct about Shooting Ranges in the United States compared with anywhere else? Since 2006, no one has found a US-specific angle to build the article around. I would propose MERGING, but I don't think there's anything in there worth adding to the Shooting range article. The article has had Multiple Issues flagged since 2014, and aside from the fact that nobody has fixed them, I'm honestly not sure it is possible to fix them - because the topic isn't notable. Consequently it has become a dusty corner full of unreferenced pearls of wisdom and anecdotal best practice. There are certainly notable ranges within the US (which deserve their own article, and can be grouped in "Category:Shooting Ranges in the United States"), but I do not believe that the general case of "Shooting Ranges in the United States is distinct or notable in its own right, or can be usefully written about in an encyclopaedic fashion. Hemmers ( talk) 11:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Much of the deleted content can be reintegrated back into the article. You deleted much of the content that made it relevant to the US, then claimed it was no longer relevant. Its a relevant split as the entire shooting range article would be filled with US relevant info. Also the cost of shooting, renting firearms vs bringing your own, your own does make it relevant to the US and is a big factor, that isn't a guide thing. That's encyclopedic information.
DarmaniLink (
talk)
12:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- changed my mind on the costs section, that bit was unsalvageable. The rest of the article should however stand, as a split for the shooting range article. DarmaniLink ( talk) 12:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Obviously I would gently disagree, although I'm glad to see we have consensus on the issues over "Cost of Shooting" which is a ludicrously unverifiable section when referring to the entire USA! If I see a dollar sign anywhere in the article, I'm probably going to delete it. It's inherently unrepresentative of the US as a whole, will age horribly with inflation and is probably incompatible with WP:NOTAGUIDE (and this is assuming it's referenced to begin with).
- But more broadly I don't see how sections such as:
- The largest problem currently with outdoor ranges is the lack of sufficient area behind and beside the impact berms. This area, usually called the Surface Danger Zone (SDZ), is a fan-shaped area that extends lengthwise to the ultimate ballistic distance of the round fired. Outdoor ranges often use baffles to contain fired rounds within the range, and, with proper design can reduce the surface danger zone area. Guidelines for surface danger zones vary widely.
- Have anything to do with Shooting in the United States. Baffles are common to ranges globally. Range design is constrained by physics and ballistics - these are not distinguishing features which make US Ranges special. And of course it's entirely uncited. Rinse and repeat for... most of the article.
- I would also note with reference to this edit message:
- "this isn't promo unless you think there's a US gun range conspiracy run by a $5B range chain in texas to mom and pops back alley shack where you shoot bottles".
- I don't think there is a conspiracy. I think the problem is that this article does not address a notable topic and is therefore looking for a gap to fill. Consequently, every mom-and-pop shop feels like they want to stick in their little bit of local wisdom. Which is why the content is of a very poor standard, and almost entirely unreferenced. Lines such as "to help one to easily learn use of any rental firearm in just a few minutes." read like a promotion (
WP:ADVOCACY), even if they're not advertising a specific business or location. Such language is advocating for the concept of rental ranges generally and advertising their services. Which is not encyclopaedic.
Hemmers (
talk)
13:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- The wording could definitely be improved as it seems verbatum from a gun range's pamphlet, but I wouldn't say its conceptually advocacy or promo. Lets continue this on the talk page so we don't clog this DarmaniLink ( talk) 13:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Much of the deleted content can be reintegrated back into the article. You deleted much of the content that made it relevant to the US, then claimed it was no longer relevant. Its a relevant split as the entire shooting range article would be filled with US relevant info. Also the cost of shooting, renting firearms vs bringing your own, your own does make it relevant to the US and is a big factor, that isn't a guide thing. That's encyclopedic information.
DarmaniLink (
talk)
12:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - To be clear, I really, really don't like this subject or this article. The Anglosphere's recent obsession/lovefest with firearms is a disease. That said, the article's main problem is lack of RS and that, at least, can be remedied. American English has an entire universe of RS about shooting ranges. Sources and a thorough rewrite leaves an encyclopaedic article that enhances Wikipedia. Cheers,
Last1in (
talk)
00:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your feedback! I agree about the obsession. But the presence of American English RS doesn’t justify a US-specific article though? Unless they cover something specific and unique to Shooting ranges in the United States. Things like range design are founded in ballistics and physics. Which are literally universal. I’m not seeing anything “us-specific” that justifies a US article. Any American English RS about shooting ranges is likely to apply equally to French or Indian ranges. Which is emphasised by the reaction to this AfD, which has been to try and shoehorn in generalised information about gun laws in California/US states (which doesn’t even relate directly to ranges). No one seems to be able to find a notable US-specific angle or explain what value this article could or should provide over and above the basic Shooting range article. Hemmers ( talk) 18:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- "Anglosphere"? This is a USA phenomenon. Other anglophone countries -- Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa ... -- don't have the obsession with guns that Americans have. It's not so "recent", either. Anyway, delete: the article is of no interest to people outside the USA.
Athel cb (
talk)
09:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is so much factually wrong with that comment, but let's start with the idea that US-focused articles are somehow bad. There is no policy that I know of that discourages US-specific articles opposed to those specific to other counties. Articles about
Shooting ranges in Norway and
Switzerland are perfect encyclopaedic, so why can't this one be improved just as easily? On the idea that
the article is of no interest to people outside the USA
, we have around a hundred-thousand articles on CDPs, a concept of a "locale" so small that the subject doesn't even qualify as a village. With US gun madness on the global news about once a week, you think that people are more interested in Bartlett, Iowa than in US gun ranges? Now, as for the idea that gun obsession in the Anglosphereis a USA phenomenon
, you might want to read the news outside the US and UK. Oh, Canada has the fourth highest rate of gun ownership on the planet. Australia would still be giving the US a run for its money if it hadn't been for Port Arthur. If we exclude Latin American countries, South Africa currently has the third highest gun-death rate in the world, and the leader is Eswatini (also part of the Anglosphere) article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 16:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is so much factually wrong with that comment, but let's start with the idea that US-focused articles are somehow bad. There is no policy that I know of that discourages US-specific articles opposed to those specific to other counties. Articles about
Shooting ranges in Norway and
Switzerland are perfect encyclopaedic, so why can't this one be improved just as easily? On the idea that
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Easily passes
WP:GNG. Didn't think I'd ever see an article about America and guns nominated for deletion in part because there's nothing special about the subject in this country. In addition to research about ranges in relation to the larger subject of simply guns in the US, there are
articles about the culture of shooting ranges,
biases in shooting ranges, etc. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
15:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- See, this here is the hurdle that I'm struggling to get past. People are saying "ah well, it's adjacent to firearms in the US, and must therefore be notable because guns and america". But there's no evidence of that. Shooting culture and politics is already well covered - there's an article for "Gun laws in <state>" for basically every US state. Plus summary articles like Gun politics in the United States, Gun law in the United States or Gun laws in the United States by state. But a shooting range is a geographical place or amenity. Put aside the politics... what is unique about shooting ranges in the US? Nada (other than being quite a lot of them). There are indoor 25m ranges and 1000yard outdoor ranges. There are 10metre airgun ranges. These are similar to ranges you will find around the world. What is so distinct about a 10m ISSF-compliant airgun range in the US that makes it sufficiently different from one in Germany, the UK or China that those distinctions meet GNG? Or a 25m pistol range? It's like having an article "9mm ammunition in the United States".
- You raise an interesting point on broader culture... but... there's an article for that ( Gun culture in the United States). Likewise anti-muslim biases in US shooting ranges is extremely notable... but is really just a very specific case of Racism in the United States and/or Islamophobia in the United States.
- Someone will probably come along and accuse me of bludgeoning the conversation in a bit. But for all the people saying it's "obviously GNG", nobody seems able to add good, quality encyclopaedic content that isn't a guide or a list of businesses!
Hemmers (
talk)
16:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- The general consensus is "it's notable, but the current state of the article sucks." It's not that a lot of people are "not able", its "not want". Not everyone spends 40 hours a week editing wikipedia and frankly, i'm not passionate enough about guns, nor do i have the time anymore, to overhaul the article. Either way, the linked sources are about american shooting ranges. DarmaniLink ( talk) 16:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis covering the subject of shooting ranges in the USA please as this is otherwise a discussion devoid of strong policy based argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I've created a source table that Spartaz suggested. It is based on the current sourcing of the article. There isn't much to grasp here, though I'm sure there are more reliable sources our there. Conyo14 ( talk) 22:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://damagefactory.com/yes-foreign-nationals-may-rent-and-shoot-guns/ | Primary source of a shooting range
|
? no consistent reliable sources say much about this particular location, but it does give an official gov't source | Merely mentions laws regarding rights of foreign nationals
|
✘ No |
| http://nrahuntersrights.org/PlacestoShoot.aspx | ? | unsecured and unregistered site
|
Domain page
|
✘ No |
| https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=30515.&lawCode=PEN |
|
|
WP:ROUTINE
|
✘ No |
| https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2009/05/18/firingrange/ |
WP:BLOG
|
|
|
✘ No |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. | ||||
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful for those editors arguing for a Keep to review the source table analysis and respond to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per the source table. I won't wade into the gun debate. The USA literally has thousands of shooting ranges, and what's given seems to be no different than shooting ranges elsewhere. You bet your Colt 45 ranges here in Canada are 99% similar to what's described here. Other than being in the USA, I see no reason to have an article about American gun ranges; other than the sheer number of them, I can't see a difference between a range in Canada, Mexico, or the US (to limit ourselves to North America for the source of example). Safety concerns, yes. Most are part of a gun club. So you take out the American bits in the article, and this is just an article about shooting ranges. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Response to table as requested:The topic itself falls under general notability but the article, in its current state, sucks and needs improvement. That has been my stance the whole time. There's already precedent in Shooting ranges in Switzerland Shooting ranges in Norway to have a nation specific shooting range article.
- Currently horrible sourcing and a poorly written article going back to like 2006 doesnt mean the topic itself isn't notable. Rhododendrites posted two links about american specific shooting ranges. here and here.
- There's a ton of news articles and papers on american specific shooting ranges, or which contain a heavy focus on them. This needs to be updated by someone with the time to overhaul it. I do not fall under this catagory, otherwise I would.
- Notable topic, bad article.
DarmaniLink (
talk)
05:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I made another source table to analyze Rhododentrite's sources. Kinda wish someone could provide an example of an academic source, then I could !vote. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
- Rhododentrites additional sources analysis by
Conyo14 (
talk)
06:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC) :
- They talk about gun ranges, yes, but don't differentiate them from any other gun ranges around the world, I think that's the issue. The article wants to talk about it, but only mentions basic facts that apply to any gun range, anywhere.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with that. The NPR article is literally talking about gun ranges in America. The NY Times article is talking about Muslim bias about guns, in the US.
Conyo14 (
talk)
22:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the NPR piece is is about US ranges, and the NYT is as well. The question from a notability standard, though, is whether either of them makes US shooting ranges somehow uniquely notable as opposed to shooting ranges everywhere else. The NYT piece is more about the treatment of Muslims in the US, using shooting ranges as the frame. It's not an invalid point, but it is certainly the weaker of the arguments here. The NPR piece is harder to dismiss. Like
DarmaniLink, I still feel that the problem here is the sourcing, not the subject. I have to admit, though, that
Oaktree b and
Hemmers's points are making it a much more difficult decision. Cheers,
Last1in (
talk)
22:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with that. I cannot decide whether this article should be kept or deleted. I'm more for a no consensus on this. Conyo14 ( talk) 23:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the NPR piece is is about US ranges, and the NYT is as well. The question from a notability standard, though, is whether either of them makes US shooting ranges somehow uniquely notable as opposed to shooting ranges everywhere else. The NYT piece is more about the treatment of Muslims in the US, using shooting ranges as the frame. It's not an invalid point, but it is certainly the weaker of the arguments here. The NPR piece is harder to dismiss. Like
DarmaniLink, I still feel that the problem here is the sourcing, not the subject. I have to admit, though, that
Oaktree b and
Hemmers's points are making it a much more difficult decision. Cheers,
Last1in (
talk)
22:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with that. The NPR article is literally talking about gun ranges in America. The NY Times article is talking about Muslim bias about guns, in the US.
Conyo14 (
talk)
22:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- They talk about gun ranges, yes, but don't differentiate them from any other gun ranges around the world, I think that's the issue. The article wants to talk about it, but only mentions basic facts that apply to any gun range, anywhere.
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Source assessment table:
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.npr.org/2013/01/31/170391799/are-shooting-ranges-the-new-bowling-alleys | NPR
|
NPR
|
Literally about gun ranges
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/07/us/muslim-gun-owners-america.html | A couple of interviews, but don't speak for the majority of owners
|
NY Times
|
~ Mostly routine mentions about gun stores and Muslim bias, not much on the ranges themselves, but still partial. | ~ Partial |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}. | ||||
- 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.