Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Carter High School 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. Courcelles 23:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

East Carter High School shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not-notable shooting, This is still just a local crime story -- there is nothing of encyclopedic value here. Night of the Big Wind talk  14:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Nominator just nominated a bunch of school shootings for deletion while giving no policy based reason. The primary notability criteria is the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources, which this are present in this article. Marokwitz (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not every shooting is notable. Night of the Big Wind  talk  14:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume this is not a reply to me, since I didn't say anything about every shooting being notable. Marokwitz (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are complaining about  Nominator just nominated a bunch of school shootings what gives me the idea that you regard every shooting as notable. Be aware of the scope searching and networks of the most newspapers. Night of the Big Wind  talk  15:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources for this article include NYT and USNWR.  WP:CRIME requires a certain threshold of discussion by secondary sources.  The sources already in the article seem sufficient to meet that guideline. --Noleander (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is cited to coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources over a period of at least three years. Meets WP:GNG. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep on procedural grounds without thorough review I'd like to see some specifics related to this article from the nominator before it goes through this whole process.  Large amount of nominations of shooting articles, with only boilerplate type wording (nothing indicating specific review of the article) given as the rationale. many of which clearly meet notability, North8000 (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To me it looks like a run of the mill murder with two people dead. There are hundreds of killings with that number of victims a day. How sad it is, it is not something special or notable. The article does not give (hints to) evidence of wider impact or far reaching consequences. Night of the Big Wind  talk  20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * From my side of the ocean I was horrified to hear what you are saying but maybe what you are saying is wrong. This, which rather too polemical for my liking, says of the USA "according to the National School Safety Center (2003), there were 93 incidents in which a student murdered someone at school during the ten years from the 1992-93 school year to the 2001-02 school year". School shooting does not address the specific prevalence. Now, this does not affect WP notability considerations directly but it would be nice to have a discussion on a reasonable basis. Do we know what the murder rate at US schools is? Thincat (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mass AfD nominations on a certain topic. without reasonings.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Look two dots higher and you see a longer explanation... Night of the Big Wind  talk  22:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG and criteria outlined at WP:EVENT. Significant coverage in prominent, national sources (e.g. People). Location (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is extensively sourced. A bunch of other good articles were nominated for deletion and all will result in the same SNOW KEEP. If this immature disruption continues I will go to ANI. That's a promise.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem attack and threat without real arguments. Come back when you have them. Night of the Big Wind  talk  11:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Article is extensively sourced" is a perfectly valid argument. Marokwitz (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep per WP:POINT. See diff (bottom addition). —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This starts to look like an orchestrated campaign. I think I have hit a sore nerve here by nominating some treasures :-) Unfortunately, I am not making a point but I am just not convinced that the articles are notable enough. Notability does not come with news coverage alone... Night of the Big Wind  talk  16:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that you have made several nominations in a matter of minutes, and the plentiful availability of sources in "Google books" I strongly doubt that you've made any effort whatsoever to search for sources. Marokwitz (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per sources. SL93 (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2011 (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.