Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Hudson Valley Mall shooting incident

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 12 clear "delete" votes (minus one anon), 12 clear "keep" votes (minus one troll), 12 "transwiki" votes and one anon comment too unclear to interpret.

Noting that Transwiki does not destroy history and therefore does not require the same degree of overwhelming concensus that deletion does and further noting that even the article's main author and defender is now suggesting that this should be transwiki'd, I am going to be bold and add it to the transwiki queue. Rossami (talk) 03:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2005 Hudson Valley Mall shooting incident
I don't think this article is encyclopedic enough SYSS Mouse 02:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Transwiki - change of mind after some updates in the story. Turns out to be one one gunman and not five. Keep, obviously. Notable, important, verifible, informative. Good news search shows 338 articles about it. We (rightly) have articles far more obscure. Reports indicate that there may have been as many as five gunmen. Surely this is more notable than about 85 percent of the articles on Unusual articles, or other crime related articles (e.g., Scott Peterson)? This is an absurd VfD. Neutralitytalk 02:09, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Full disclosure: I am the author of the article. Neutralitytalk 02:29, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * What got you interested in this shooting in the first place? silsor 10:35, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * It was on CNN all last night, so I write an article. Neutralitytalk 15:09, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WikiNews &mdash;Neuropedia 02:15, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
 * It's written in an encylopedia style, not a news style. A transwiki is inappropriate. Neutralitytalk 02:18, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, review in a month. This may turn out to be important; it may be forgotten entirely next week. Right now it's too early to say. (and please add a reference or two, thx.) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 02:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Four sources have been added. Thanks. Neutralitytalk 02:25, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Most major news stories like this are notable enough for Wikipedia even though we do have WikiNews. Szyslak 02:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems perfectly appropriate. Tuf-Kat 02:23, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This type of article has a long history on Wikipedia. Since it is written in an encyclopedic style, it should be kept. Andrew pmk 02:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and encyclopedia. - BanyanTree 02:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep! &#9999; Oven Fresh  ²  02:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is breaking news.  At this point, it is hard to know whether this is going to be like the Columbine High School incident and have enduring encyclopedic value, or whether it is going to be forgotten in a couple of news cycles.    I think it would be better to keep breaking news out of the Wikipedia, and leave it for Wikinews, except in those cases where it is clear from the outset that an incident will be of encyclopedic interest in the future. --BM 03:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

JesseG 18:41, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment A week on VfD may allow this to resolve into a more stable article. Neutrality's contributions have been sufficient that I think s/he can be trusted to stay on top of this one. Denni &#9775; 03:35, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
 * Delete. This was a local shooting. No one was even killed.  What is its significance?  Should I start writing up articles on all the shootings and murders in my area? BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 04:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the USA: people shoot people. Utterly unnotable. Delete. -- Hoary 05:15, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sad though it is, violent crime occurs all the time in this country. I don't see why this non-fatal incident is any more notable than these murders from my region that have turned up in the news lately:  . So the perpetrators chose a public setting and fired at random people instead of people they knew. That doesn't establish it as encyclopedic in my opinion. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 05:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete in view of other shooting incidents in the United States this isnt really all that notable, no-one was killed. Megan1967 05:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete.  RickK 06:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Wikipedia is not Wikinews.  No evidence that this is a "topic of historical significance". &mdash;Korath (Talk) 06:23, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikinews. This isn't currently notable. If it becomes notable later, we can make an article about it. --Sillydragon 08:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikinews. While the article has got goos writing, this shooting isn't any different from the hundreds happening in the US on a daily basis. I think it's got enough of a news style to be transwikied, but it could always be edited before the move. That shouldn't stop transwiki from being an option. Mgm|(talk) 08:56, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not yet notable, and given the number of more lurid/murderous evnts, unlikely to be so.  HowardB 09:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, if every violent incident that resulted in two people being injured was written up in Wikipedia, there's be more articles of that nature than everything else combined. &mdash;Stormie 10:59, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikinews. As above. If this event proves to be notable then the article can be recreated. Lan3y - Talk 11:48, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violent crimes occur every day. What makes this one special? &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 12:17, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important and interesting. - Darwinek 14:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki as noted above. The event got some major coverage immediately afterward, but it's pretty evident this isn't another Columbine shooting, nor a terrorist attack. As noted above, if later events prove this to be a notable event (outside the immediate vicinity) it's easy enough to put together a new article. 23skidoo 16:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki as noted above. 63.198.46.74 17:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't know how I got logged out ... the above is my vote. HyperZonk 17:30, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a little new to Wikipedia so I am unclear why you wouldn't keep an article like this... Although it current reads a tad like a news article it is factual and there are articles on similar events (Columbine, Montreal) so I would say keep it. emackinnon  (edit - after reading all these posts and seeing the points of both sides I can now see why an article like this is questionable... thanks)
 * Transwiki doesn't seem to be quite on the same level as Columbine, 9-11, Waco, etc. This is why wikinews is important, so that the main WP doesn't get deluged with daily news events. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  17:45, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's ridiculous to say that an event needs to be on the "same level as Columbine, 9-11, Waco, etc" to merit an article. People are voting as if this were a mugging or something. Neutralitytalk 01:13, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody was killed or even very seriously injured. Not to undermine its obvious importance to those who were there, but it's basically a case of some guy going postal and unloading a weapon in a public place.  If we say this deserves an article, then why not the hundreds of thousands of murders and non-fatal acts of violence that happen all over the world every year? If this happened on the street in the inner city instead of in a mall, it would just be another footnote in the police blotter.  Wrong?  Right?  Maybe so, maybe not, but that's how our society assigns importance to things.  Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  02:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say to either keep this article, or merge it into the Hudson Valley Mall article that deals with the mall itself and make it a section of the article.
 * Keep. No valid reason was provided to delete.  GRider\talk 20:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Several valid reasons were given. RickK 20:49, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No valid reason was provided for having the article in the first place. Maybe it belongs in the Poughkeepsiepedia but not here. --Calton 20:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikinews. In general, breaking local news should appear there. Once it has stood the test of time, someone will write a Wikipedia article. Jonathan 21:40 14 February 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Neutrality. Keep. This is a notable current event article. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  23:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. People are shot and killed every day. This does not stand out. JoaoRicardo 02:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep please, not very notable, but notable enough to sustain an article. silsor 10:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WikiNews. I respect Neutrality's contributions but this is nothing particularly special about this crime.  Rossami (talk) 03:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. ComCat 01:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It would NOT be a good news story -- Five gunmen? The kind of gun is unknown? The number of shots fired is unknown? Wrong, it was one guy with an AK-47 "knockoff" and approx. 60 shots were fired. This barely made the news here in SoCal, but a brief search shows that its facts are wrong and no one cares enough to update it. The fact that this info was not available when it was written underlines the difference between news and an encyclopedic article. Should our friends in the UK post similar half-baked stories about stuff that we have never heard of?
 * keep Yuckfoo 03:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.