Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Active shooter

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The result was Keep (nom withdrawn) Eluchil404 18:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Active shooter

Ok. The first paragraph is a dicdef. Only cite is that the EPSO defines what an active shooter is. Does not show the term as being relevant to any other LEO departments. Second paragraph is a list of "active shooter incidents"...which technically would include any situation when police arrived on scene for a shooting. That happens daily around the world. Further, I believe it includes situations in which the shooter had ceased firing (whether through suicide or lack of ammo, or other reasons) before police arrived on scene. Third paragraph discusses "changes in police response" as related to Columbine, which belongs in the Columbine article. Basically it's an article looking to define a term that is not uniformly used throughout law enforcement agencies, and each individual paragraph would very easily strengthen it's own article elsewhere. Further, Spree killer already fits the article. There's also a picture on the page with no caption, I believe it's one of the Columbine shooters. I haven't looked into the copyright status of it, but it could be an issue. I'm all for SWAT related articles: I heavily maintain SWAT, but this one is unnecessary, redundant, and feels like random unrelated paragraphs slapped together. I withdraw my nomination of this. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As nominator. (reposting this here, due to length of nomination) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment, not a nom yet - I am reluctant to disagree with ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! since I am aware of his credentials and history. However, I do feel the need to point out this discussion should be carried out in terms of WP policy and guideline - while I agree with many of his points (yeah, it's not my best writing), nothing is shown to violate WP:NOT, WP:V and so on. For instance, I don't know where the picture came from, my bad, but I didn't post it and that's not a reflection on the article. Can the nom be restated? I am fully willing to complete the process, however it goes, but I would want the discussion to be within WP policy. Tychocat 09:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Swatjester appears to be saying that this is original research, a new synthesis of information and an explication of a new concept that has not yet been acknowledged beyond its coiners, and a violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. To counter the charge that this is original research, cite sources to show that that is an acknowledged list of active shooters and not just something that a Wikipedia editor made up, cite sources to show that more than just a single Sheriff's Office acknowledges this concept, cite sources to show that the change in police response is specifically because of this concept, and cite sources to show that this specific concept has been discussed in the CSM. Uncle G 12:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per nom unless, as Tychocat said, the nominator clarifies the nomination to explain why the article is "unneccessary". If it's just "redundant, and feels [ramdomly] slapped together," that is a case for rewrite (or redirection to the article it's redundant with), not deletion.Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup— Must agree that the article can be improved per nomination and previous discussion. If we deleted every Wikipedia that is not terribly well written, we'd be significantly smaller. Williamborg (Bill)
• Keep. Cleanup needed, so is citation, but not deletion. Batmanand | Talk 20:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Clarification: The specific policy I'm citing, is WP:NOR, and to a lesser extent the "neologism" rule (can't remember the name). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The article quotes the Minneapolis PD manual, which uses the phrase "active shooter". I quote, per everyone's comment, the El Paso Sheriff's Department as well. A general Google gets 27,800 hits, with 795 distinct hits, and many of those hits are Powerpoint training sessions on active-shooter response, or academies offering training in such (such as the North American SWAT Training Association, which I did not quote but linked to an article about same). So, I have three sources which use the phrase "active shooter". Make fun of my writing all you want, I'm embarrassed and will fix the darn thing; but, I have to disagree with the WP:NOR. Tychocat 09:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per my comments regarding WP:NOR. I'm the contributor, and I'm embarrassed to be seen in public with the article, but all it needs is some rewriting. I will fix it. Tychocat 09:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not making fun of your writing. The grammar is fine. It just seems like there isn't enough substance to justify the article, nor that it's in common usage outside those 3 PDs. I've never even HEARD of the North American SWAT Training Association, nor has my team leader. Are you sure that's an actual, credible training organization (essentially a LEO version of those "learn street fighting techniques" scam companies,? I mean...it sounds like a mallninja organization.) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, it's okay, I know it's badly written. I own that, and was trying to make the point humorously. But as I was pointing out with the Google results, I think there's more than enough material to make it an acceptable article. Also, please keep in mind there are limits to how many citations and references are really necessary in a scholarly article. I will change the NASTA link because you raise the question and I have a choice of many others to reference. Tychocat 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Tychocat, would you be accept me withdrawing this AfD nomination on the condition that you do the rewrite and make it up to par, and throw in a bunch of cites? If you'd like my help with it just ask. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, no problemo. I'll beg the indulgence of a few days (the real world demands my attention, sigh). Tychocat 14:56, 30 August 2006 (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.