Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contagious shooting

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. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contagious_shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contagious shooting is a neologism with limited use. It is not yet a common term. Maybe one day in the future, but not today. perfectblue 18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Neologism perfectblue 18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . It's a common enough term for Howstuffworks to devote an article to it. http://people.howstuffworks.com/contagious-shooting.htm --Martin-C 18:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Something with multiple newspaper articles as citations canot be a neologism. It is a common term when officers fire 50 bullits at a car containing unarmed persone, or when they shoot an unarmed man 40 times. When one officer starts shooting, they all empty their guns, perhaps in the belief that they are hearing shots fired by the target. --Edison 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this term is being thrown around the news very frequently. The article needs reworked, but should not be deleted.--Daysleeper47 20:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while the article needs improvement, it is well sourced and duly verified.-- danntm ^T _C 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article's not particularly good, but the subject is notable enough for inclusion. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hardly a neologism-- has been in use for over seven years, with numerous instances in the press from 1999 Diallo incident in the press. Jokestress 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the New York Times is using it, it's a real word. Article does need cleanup, which I would be more than willing to help with. Natalie 01:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's two words: "contagious" and "shooting". Whether a word is real is an issue for Wiktionary. For Wikipedia the issue is whether the concept is real, and documented by multiple good sources. Uncle G 16:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep. Tha fact that it is a neologism should be even more of a reason for Wikipedia to provide reliably sourced information on the topic, for instance, see Truthiness. (It would be a different issue if it was invented on wikipedia and not used by independent sources.) Abecedare 02:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's real. --Oakshade 03:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It could use some expansion, but I can think of no reason why this article wouldn't be legit. Ford MF 00:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a neologism that seems to be persisting and is probably connected with other better established social contagion. Sapamm 10:06, 2 December 2006 (GMT) —The preceding comment was added by 81.132.152.247 (talk • contribs).
• Keep. It's being used consistantly and regularly in reliable sources. Gnfnrf 16:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it overwhelming enough to close this AfD yet? The only opinion for delete is the original nominator... Natalie 20:36, 2 December 2006 (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.