Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wakefield massacre


 * 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. Tone 13:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wakefield massacre

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced article on a provably nn workplace shooting in Massachusetts in 2000. Google shows three hits for the title (one is this article), and the article has copvio taken from either here or here. This wasn't notable outside of the standard three-day media blitz (Google News shows this; the event was 12/26/00, and after 12/30/00, there was nothing except the jury selection note and trial outcome. As a matter of fact, this hit pretty much shows how non-notable it was at the time and place it happened. MSJapan (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm afraid I'm not one of the Wikipedians who increasingly equate "no inline sources" with "unsourced." As it happens, a simple Google News search for "Michael McDermott" + "Wakefield" returns a whopping 387 hits, and despite nom's assertion that there are no hits after December of 2000, EVERY hit on the first page of that search is after that date, and over a stretch of three years, not three days.  (This search, by the bye, took me all of thirty seconds.)  The sources include the Los Angeles Times, Boston Herald, Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today, Boston Globe, San Diego Union, Christian Science Monitor ... The G-News hits continue through 2004 (Boston Herald, Chicago Sun-Times), 2005 (Stoneham Sun, Boston Globe) ... even a 60 Minutes piece referencing it in 2007.  Notability is not temporary, but this hasn't left the public eye.  And ... quite aside from anything else, I'm quite bewildered at the nom's assertion that a judge popping off about the media coverage on the case "pretty much shows" anything at all - let alone notability or the lack thereof - other than that the judge needed a better handle on his temper.   RGTraynor  21:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Even if there are no sources cited in the article, there are plenty out there that could be used, so this can't be a reason to delete it. Tagging it with refimprove would be enough. And that the incident is not notable simply isn't true. It made international headlines, got quite intensive national media coverage and it is still cited as an example of a failed insanity defense. And yes, it was called "Wakefield massacre" by the media, especially the Boston Herald used this term numerous times. (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Come to that, there are two hits in May of this year; the article Lord Gon links also cites this case as the worst case of workplace violence in Massachusetts history . Finally, I wonder exactly what the nom's methodology was in declaring only three Google hits.  "Wakefield Massacre" on Google News - a good bit stricter than the regular web search - returns 54 hits.    RGTraynor  09:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - In fact, there are over 6700 Google hits for the search "Michael Mcdermott"+"Wakefield MA", the article has +/- 1000 hits per month, and the first link offered as proof of a copyright violation for the article [ is in fact cited "This article is from Wikipedia licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wakefield Massacre"." The other link is dead at the time I'm writing this. It meets notability, it needs cleaned up, expanded, and inline citations and more references added. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  but more sources should be added; it seems they are available.    DGG ( talk ) 08:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's been several days since this article was nominated, and in that time not one source has been added to the article. This really irks me ... Please, if you are going to vote to "Keep" an unsourced article because there are sources out there, then it should be incombant on you to fix the problem by actually adding some of those sources. Thank you... rant over. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Which exhortation would have gone over better had you added any yourself.   RGTraynor  22:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I will rewrite the whole article, though it will take me at least a week before it's done. Until then, I'll simply add some links to a few newspaper articles, which hopefully will quell those complaining about the lack of sources.(Lord Gøn (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Comment It had actually been nominated less than 48 hours before your rant and keep or delete is not incumbent upon the article being improved. Most of those comments were made in response to the claim the event was a flash in the pan non-notable event. As RGTraynor said, it would go over better if you'd bothered to add something. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep  There is an article for every other shooting spree in existence, this one just needs to be written and referenced better. 99.231.130.188 (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2009 (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.