Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindhurst 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)

Lindhurst High School shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log )

not notable shooting Night of the Big Wind  talk  14:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, Is notable, based on the independent reliable source "Encyclopedia of School Crime and Violence. Page 233-234". Other sources easy to find. Marokwitz (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:23, 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)
 * I don't believe a school shooting is notable, just because it is a school shooting. Although it would be a very traumatic event for the victims, I don't think a crime involving 4 fatalities and 9 wounded is very special in the United States. The article does not give any hint of evidence for wider impact then the involved community or far reaching consequences. With the serious scope-hunting from media in the USA and the wide use of so called wireless services, I guess that you can discount at least half of the media report as coming from the same original source/newsagency. So using media-reports to decide on notability is a tricky business. Night of the Big Wind  talk  21:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per North8000.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is extensively sourced. The vague handwave argument by nominator, "not notable", is an insult to the creator who undoubtedly worked hard on the article. 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) 05:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem attack and threat without real arguments. Come back when you have them. Night of the Big Wind  talk  11:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Article is extensively sourced" is a perfectly valid argument in deletion discussions. Marokwitz (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you must look at another article then I do... Night of the Big Wind  talk  10:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep per WP:POINT. See diff (bottom addition). —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 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.