Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

very simple, shooting article was deleted,so this must be as well. Should really be nominated for speedy deletion. -- Rodrigue 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note This AfD listing was not completed. I just did it. -- Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep While high schools are not always notable, the shooting definitely makes this one notable. The article needs more references and some expansion, but it was only recently started as a result of the AfD on the shooting (see Articles for deletion/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting). Although that AfD was not properly listed, many argued there that the shooting page should be merged into an article about the school. Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep definitely, school made notable by the shooting Guycalledryan 08:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment well It does not matter if you think thats what some said, because that was not the result of the AFD, and this article no longer meets Notability since the shooting event is no longer considered so as well. Rodrigue 12:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because the shooting itself does not meet the requirements of notability does not meant that the school itself does not. Flyguy649talkcontribs 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah the irony - "Move to C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute and make it a section. It would then be easier for readers to find. I doubt anybody will question the notability of the school in light of the shooting and resultant press coverage. --Butseriouslyfolks", from the actual incident's AfD Guycalledryan 10:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * People are an endless source of fascination for me. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Notability is determined by the media. The school has enough references to have an article and be verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs at least one more secondary source to pass notability standards, but as it has one strong one to start with I'll say there's a presumed notability unless demonstrated otherwise. Looking at the Afd about the shooting I believe the nom is a bit confused.  The final decision by the closing admin was NOT delete it was (quoting) "I've userfied the content at User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting for appropriate merging into the article on the C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute. FCYTravis 18:19, 28 May 2007".  In other words, the closing decision was that the information belonged in this article.  In fact, that closing argument is a tacit decision that an article on the Institute that discusses the shooting is an a priori Keep  -Markeer 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and Close and investigate nominator for vexatious, improperly listed AfDs. Nomination is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. His very first AfD on these related topics (see Articles for deletion/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting) concluded with an admin Userifying a shooting article to merge it into a new article about the school. They were NOT judged as worthy of being deleted. This nomination is entirely flawed and I would close it immediately if I could. Canuckle 23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I took the original shooting content from the Userfied page and added it to the article. I also suggested that the Articles for deletion/Jordan Manners article be merged here. Canuckle 03:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep due to faulty logic in the nomination. DCEdwards1966 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep; nomination appears to be based on bad logic and a faulty reading of the Jordan Manners AFD. Bearcat 22:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is established based on sources provided. while incident may not justify a standalone article, the details belong here are sourced and establish notability. Alansohn 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   -- Butseriouslyfolks 03:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as the school is notable per WP:N for the significant, nontrivial press coverage arising from the shooting. The school was thrust into the national spotlight, and the school's responses and the impact on the students both received significant coverage.  Also, the consensus at the prior AfD was not that the shooting was nonnotable; it was that we don't write Wikipedia articles around shootings themselves, but rather around the people and places involved. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Um, no, It was deleted for lack of notability because it was a simple homocide.Wikipedia has articles on school shootings such as the Virginia tech massacre, as well as people and places surrounding them, if the shooting itself was notable Rodrigue 15:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to Rodrigue: Possibly you missed where I quoted the closing outcome.  The final outcome of that AfD was not delete it was, quoting: "I've userfied the content at User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting for appropriate merging into the article on the C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute. FCYTravis 18:19, 28 May 2007"  The closing admin who determined that the article should be saved in the creators workspace was User:Royalguard11.  This information can be found in the top area (above the redlink to the original article) of the AfD discussion on that article.  Please do not keep saying that the determination was to delete.  It was not.  When the outcome of an AfD is to delete, the closing admin states that delete is the outcome at the top of the AfD. -Markeer 01:46, 6 June 2007 (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.