Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preventing school violence


 * 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   merge to School violence. Consensus seems to be that it is a inappropriate fork; however, there is no consensus to delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Preventing school violence

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete (or userfy). Still reads like a cross between a scholarly paper (to WikiBooks, perhaps) and an advocacy piece. No significant improvement in the past month 3 weeks. In all fairness, the "orphan" property is my fault, as I removed it from the #See also sections of other articles it was spammed to, but almost all of those were at most tangentially relevant, even if this article were to be fixed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Boil it down, make it more encyclopaedic, and incorporate into the "School violence" article, which already has a section on prevention. The person who started the "Preventing school violence" article has done a lot of work and acted in good faith, but has not perhaps fully understood the criteria for being encyclopaedic or the reasons for those criteria. It reads too much like a how-to guide and a series of opinions or assertions. But it would be too ruthless to consign his entire text to oblivion. He said the other day he was going to start over, after receiving a lot of negativity from the main recent editor of the "School violence" article. There is an ongoing dispute between those two editors both about the usefulness of the "Preventing school violence" article, and about what can be be permitted to be incorporated into the "School violence" article, over which its main recent editor exercises tight control in what might be thought a somewhat proprietorial manner. I would like to refer upwards the dispute between those two editors so that a non-involved experienced WP administrator can read through all the relevant talk pages and take a view on a constructive way forward for achieving consensus on the integration of the two articles into a single good article. Alarics (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfork. We already have school violence. The only possible use for a fork article under this name is as a how-to guide, which is not within the scope of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I created this page is because there was very little about prevention about scool violence or any other kind of violence. Not only is there little about prevention one thing that got my attention was this section about arming teachers on the School shooting page. I find it somewhat ironic that this isn't being targeted for deletion but an article that focuses on preventing child abuse, bullying and promoting community organization is being targeted for deletion. To censor prevention and allow for the armed teaching arguement seems absurd. Not that I'm argueing for censorship of the armed teacher section that isn't what I ever intended what I wanted to do was to offer a more rational alternative. Also I think the name is apropiate since most people are more interested in ways to prevent these disasters than look at it as news or in some cases even entertainment. When this is used for rating boosts or entertainment it only gets worse. I'm going to put a little more work into the unofficial version which I have created pending resolution of this dispute but I find it hard to believe this is what is being targeted for deletion. If anyone is interested in what I initially intended before it was censored and rewritten it is right here: User:Zacherystaylor/preventing school violence Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As an aside, it's arguable that arming teachers and trusted students is a good way to minimize school violence, so it should be in this article if this article is to be maintained, while the criticism section is inappropriate unless Joseph Gutheinz is a recognized expert in the appropriate field (and we can find real-world consensus as to what the appropriate field is). However, my objections the present article are:
 * This is intended to be a [{WP:FORK]] of school violence, and there is no reason why the relevant content shouldn't be placed there,
 * There is very little material for which we can even find the source, much less verify whether it is reliable. Alice Miller is a self-proclaimed expert on child psychology, a related topic; none of the other authors you quote appear expert; and none of the publishers you've listed are specifically known for printing factual information (as opposed to speculation and advocacy).  Most of the additional reading is too incomplete to determine whether it's reliable, and the external links seem to be advocacy sites for a specific point of view on preventing school violence (although I haven't checked all of them).
 * Finally, if it were to be a separate article, it should be at school violence prevention. But that's a minor point, which could be dealt with if there was any content that we could add.
 * However, I think I'll change my !vote to redirect, and merge anything we can use in Wikipedia to school violence or one of the related articles. But I don't think there's much there, yet.  I agree with  and, so I probably shouldn't have brought it to AfD, but I don't see any harm in deleting the article, either.
 * I may monitor the school violence article so that a #Prevention section can be maintained, but (per point 2) there's little here we can use. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to School violence. No need for an advocacy/perscriptive piece, per WP:NOT. Mention of any notable concepts in the article in the school violence article is plenty, just as the arming teachers information is in the school shooting article. The   Seeker 4   Talk  18:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —TerriersFan (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to school violence those parts that are fully sourced. Undoubtedly there is useful content but it is also interspersed with synthesis and contentious POV so the merge will need to be carried out with care. TerriersFan (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a Wikipedia article. I agree with A.R. that there is little here that would be usable., DGG (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a couple reasonable options. Either rename to "Prevention of school violence", which could seem less advocacy-like, or if there's too much original research round here, then merge to the prevention and intervention section of the existing school violence article. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete reads like an advocate piece and there is little we can keep and maintain NPOV. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and clarify: this is a cross-cutting topic which blends with bullying or school bullying. The main school of thought at Wikipedia seems to be that changing social conditions in general is the best way to "prevent" violence. If society doesn't "make" kids bad, they won't act out. I just want to ensure that this (majority?) view does not turn into the sort of consensus that censors opposing (minority?) views. The primary alternative to the view that "society makes the criminal" is that each person is responsible for his own actions, and that parents and educators must engender this sense of responsibility. There are copious published materials explaining the latter view. --Uncle Ed (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of concern with this being an advocacy piece if this was for a questionable cause I might agree with it but it isn't. Wikipedia is designed to provide educational material for the public for free assuming the public knows how to check sources which is explained in wikipedia about. Also the section about arming teachers seems like an advocacy piece for gun rights proponents yet no one is calling for deletion of that. The person who called for deleting this page said above "it's arguable that arming teachers and trusted students is a good way to minimize school violence, so it should be in this article if this article is to be maintained, while the criticism section is inappropriate unless Joseph Gutheinz is a recognized expert in the appropriate field (and we can find real-world consensus as to what the appropriate field is)." He has indicated his opinion about what solves the problem of school shoiotings and called into doubt the credibility of anyone who disagrees with him. The article isn't calling for anything radical like shooting down students at the last minute quite the oposite it is calling to solve the problem before it gets so bad. This may be a debate about which advocacy position wikipedia is willing to take not if it is taking an advocacy position.

Also I would like to remind people once again that I did provide sources and there are more on the library shelves that produce similar arguments if you care to look up wither the sources I cited or others. I'm trying to say this as civily as I know how but to argue that Arming school teachers is more important than trying to figure out what the causes leading upto the problem are and preventing them is foolish. These sources are more credible than the ones provided by the mass media or many political advocates, they have degrees in the subject and spend a lot of time studying the subject. The majority of the discusion about this article doesn't seem to have much discusion about the subject but instead about rules and the way they should be applied.

Once again with all the articles about school violence I don't think I'm being unreasonable asking to present some informed recomendations to prevent it. If someone with better writing skills or more information about the subject wants to improve it I wouldn't object but to call for deletion is in my opinion unreasonable. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "There seems to be a lot of concern with this being an advocacy piece if this was for a questionable cause I might agree with it but it isn't." We don't care if it's for a questionable cause or not, we don't have advocacy pieces. As for the armed teachers stuff - if it's wrong, fix it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete we have "School violence"; we are not a how-to. This fork is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You do have sections about prevention. You have many things that could be interpreted as advocacy pieces or not depending on whether you want to or not. I could target the section about armed teachers as an advocacy piece just as easily as you have targeted this. I have not chosen to do so since I would consider that censorship and I believe the issue should be adressed. I tried to adress it by providing a more rational point of view which was backed up by credible sources. This is the way wikipedia about says your suposed to do it. It claims that sometimes wikipedia articles may be slanted one way until someone else provides an opposing view. My idea of "fixing it" doesn't call for deleting things that I disagree with. With all the lists of violent events and serial killers and articles on them as well I find it hard to believe that the majority wants to draw the line when someone tries to improve material about prevention. Also another thing that some people should be concerned with is that apperently there is at least one teenager who is editing these articles about violence that has said it is because he has been involved in it. Wikipedia may be atracting attention to some people who are enfatuated by this instead of opposed to it. If anythiong this should provide one more reason why there should be more about prevention. If there is a troubled teenager participating in wikipedia and he sees something about prevention he may find a place to go if on the other hand he sees advice about arming teachers he may see this as part of the problem. The section about arming teachers ignores the fact that school shooters have been suicidal and not inclined to be detered by more violence.

If some one with better writing skills tried to do a better job writing the article than me I wouldn't object but that isn't what is happening here. I have been informed that whenever someone complains about posible censorship that people asociate them with someone who is creating an article about perpetual motion machines. If wikipedians can't tell the diference between a perpetual motion machine and censorship at the request of someone who has demonstrated a strong bias in favor of arming school teachers there is something wrong here. Wikipedia will allow dozens of lists and articles about violence but they may draw the line whith an article about prevention in a discussion that spends much more time talking about rules than about the subject at hand. The only people who have claimed to have read any of the material are also the only 2 people who have asked for this page to be saved. I have no doubt that if reasonable people read the material by the sources that they would agree that they are good sources although I wouldn't expect anyone to completely agree with them. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In the ignore all rules section it allows for an exception for Use common sense. It seems to me like common sence that it would be a good idea to have more about prevention. Also I didn't initialy intend for this to be a different point of view from the section on school violence. When I first write it I intended to writes a short section about preventing school shootings that offered a better sugestion than arming teachers. It seemed clear that preventing school shootings would also involve adressing other issues so I changed it. This produced a simalar article to school violence. One reason I think the name should be preserved is that it puts the emphasis on prevention. This is important since many people are fed up with just reading one article after another and little or nothing about prevention. These people would be more likely to read something if they thought the focus was to improve things. Other people may have become desensitized and in many cases may actualy look at this as entertainment. This sounds morbid but its true and that isn't the target that I think this should be aimed at. Another thing this isn't about just deleting this article but the content as well. There are objections being raised by people just because they disagree with it. These people don't seem to be checking the source or providing an explanation as to what is wrong. Wikipedia aims for neutral point of view but that can't be achieved if the most agresive people just delete things they don't like without checking the source.

One other thing I would like an opinion on as I mentioned before there is a wiki-book on how to reduce energy with a link on this page: Energy_conservation. I don't know if that is the best way to go since it isn't long enough to justify a book but it is worth considering. If there is a book would there be any reason why there couldn't be links to it on the articles about school violence and a sumation for those that just want to take a quick look? I'm not trying to be disagreeable but there could be more improvements on prevention and the armed teachers section just doesn't seem like it should be presented as the sole neutral solution to school shootings. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2009 (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.