Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of school massacres by death toll (2nd nomination)


 * 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 procedural close. Nomination withdrawn (nominator blanked the discussion) with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

List of school massacres by death toll
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I guess I will just repeat what was said in the last deletion discussion. Obviously this article was moved from the List of rampage killers (school massacres) article (which has since been restored) without the user even making a proposal and a consensus being reached in the latter's talk page. Also, according to, this article violates WP:NOTCENSORED by redacting the names of the perpetrators. In addition, there seemed to be a "single-editor ownership" going on before the creator got banned, suggesting a skewed intention for the article at best. Parsley Man (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I see no reason to delete this important and interesting list. Can be used by many readers to navigate this major subject as well. The article is well-sourced also. Clear keeper. BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Can be used by many readers to navigate this major subject as well." So does the List of rampage killers (school massacres) article. Parsley Man (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply.BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that the whole thing was copy-and-pasted from that article, with the exception of the redacting of names. Parsley Man (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - it's a mess and almost worse than useless (for example it didn't include last year's major Garissa University College attack). The inclusion criteria is laughable (why exclude attacks if they are carried out by a member of staff?). But the tolerance of list articles is high on Wikipedia, so I've no reason to delete it. The nominator doesn't give a coherent rationale for deletion anyway. Sionk (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "The nominator doesn't give a coherent rationale for deletion anyway." I will repeat myself, "Obviously this article was moved from the List of rampage killers (school massacres) article (which has since been restored) without the user even making a proposal and a consensus being reached in the latter's talk page." Parsley Man (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * List of school massacres by death toll certainly copies the style and format of List of rampage killers (school massacres) but it appears to list very different things (i.e. the massacres not the perpetrators). List of rampage killers (school massacres) is still there at that target (I assume any redirect was reverted). The original list seems hardly better (I would say worse, considering we have no widespread definition of "rampage killer"). I'll assume you simply didn't express your argument very well, however, if an article started by being copied from another article, that isn't a valid reason for deletion is it? Sionk (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the redirect was reverted; I checked the history. And yes, an article started by being copied from another article should be deleted validly. Parsley Man (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A replication of the same article could be deleted validly. But we're not talking about that at all here. They're now very different in content. Sionk (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the way it was created without a proposal even being made first? Parsley Man (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles aren't normally created after making a "proposal", they are just created. And certainly never deleted just because a proposal hadn't been made before creating them (or any other procedural issue). You reiterate this point, but it's invalid. LjL (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't see any evidence of a discussion before List of rampage killers (school massacres) was created from List of rampage killers. Sometimes it is good practise to discuss an article split. But here someone has created a list of something different, though in a similar style. If there is a problem perceived with List of school massacres by death toll it can be dealt with in the normal way, discussion and editing/cleanup. Sionk (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - And considering that this article was kept less than three months ago after a No consensus !vote in a AfD putting it up again so soon seems excessive. That the creating user has been blocked is irrelevant to an articles notability, WP:IDONTLIKEIT which seems to be the nominators main concern is irrelevant to an articles notability. BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * said this, and I quote: "Discussions closed as "no consensus" (like the previous AFD for this article) can properly be re-opened." Parsley Man (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's true, but nothing in this article's current nomination actually suggests it should be deleted, but rather, fixed and improved. It's not proper to delete an article that does belong on Wikipedia just because the present state of it is suboptimal, or other reasons such as the creator being blocked or an agenda having been pushed in the pastr. LjL (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The List of rampage killers (school massacres) article already covers a majority of the events included in this article, the remainder can be categorized or is already categorized in other appropriate lists such as List of battles and other violent events by death toll, and this article's creation goes against Wikipedia's standards of proposing for it and seeking a consensus (as it was done right off the bat without anyone else being aware of it), WP:NOTCENSORED is being violated by the redacting of names. Parsley Man (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So debate in favor of re-addition of the names, not of deletion of the article. I simply loathe it when people want to delete articles because their current content violates a "rule", when they could simply be fixed to adhere to that rule instead. As to rampage killers, I'd say the topic of massacres is a lot more notable than the topic of individual killers (note that single massacres may be performed by more than one individual). By the way, creation of articles doesn't have to follow any particular standards of proposing it etc etc. In fact, there is a "WP:Be bold and just do it" "standard". LjL (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thing is, the List of rampage killers (school massacres) article, which DOES include the names, has already been restored. And what kind of standard is that?! It sounds like it could lead to some problems. Parsley Man (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If the two articles entirely overlap each other, then they can be merged, without a need for deleting one of them. The "standard" is a Wikipedia guideline, and while of course it must be applied in concert with all the other guidelines, it seems to have contributed to creating a successful encyclopedia where people are bold and edit. LjL (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I give up! Disregard this, please! Enjoy this terrible article! :( Parsley Man (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2016 (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.