Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westroads Mall 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. For an event that has only occurred within the last day, it is generally unwise to debate on such a scale whether the shooting will be regarded as notable in the future. The article is decent in quality and (this is my personal opinion creeping in here) I believe the evolution of an article, at least in the initial stages, is easier and faster if there is significant interest in the subject matter. For now, it would be better to keep the article, let it evolve over time and judge later on whether it is notable.Harryboyles 03:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Westroads Mall shooting

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is no evidence of the larger significance of this shooting yet - it's a top news story today, but there isn't sufficient evidence that this is an event worth covering. Furthermore, without the possibility of critical perspective it is impossible for this article not to violate BLP, as it is necessarily about the (often negative and tragic) details of living and recently deceased people without any consideration for broader significance. Simply put, it is irresponsible for us to claim that what we are hosting here is an encyclopedia article. Leave this sort of thing to WikiNews. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Brown's Chicken massacre. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep.' This event is newsworthy AND worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Its another case of an American mass shooting event that killed several people. The fact that it is news should not preclude it from being on Wikipedia. We have many other articles about similar events: the Amish school shootings, the Columbine massacre, etc. ThreeOneFive (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Premature nomination. Its been literally hours, and these articles always seem to get nominated, and are always keept it seems like. Even if the press coverage dies down 10 days from now, it will still pass the threshold for notability. If no one cares in a few months, nominate it then. Otherwise, it just wastes cycles going through this each time such a story breaks. Lawrence Cohen  00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely more time is wasted writing crappy articles like this than deleting them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely that's a pretty arrogant view to hold of our peers. The article is fine, and there is no reason it won't be better yet in the next 5 days or 5 years. Lawrence Cohen  00:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Had I but world enough, and time, I'd show you that this particular example is fairly mild compared to some of Sandifer's commentary. Describing someone else's work as "crappy" is hardly civil, but it's what passes for mild commentary from Sandifer. --Ssbohio (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Premature, and obviously notable.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On what possible grounds can its notability be obvious? There isn't any existent critical perspective or impact from this, and it does not tie in as a major development in any existing notable topic. I will grant that this could turn out to be notable, but I see no evidence whatsoever that it is notable as of this timestamp, little yet that it is "obviously" so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that it has drawn international attention and coverage? Lawrence Cohen  00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Chances are good no one will remember this in a month. And if anyone does, it'll be a semi-reasonable candidate for an article at that time.  mdf (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Brown's Chicken massacre as mentioned above. Chances are you are wrong, unfortunately. Lawrence Cohen  00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. WP:NOT. We have Wikinews for that.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that these articles always seem to be kept, maybe we should AfD the section that is WP:NOT as irrelevant for a deletion reason. Lawrence Cohen  00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm advocating keeping over deletion.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Man bites dog is news. Man kills bunch of people and himself in the mall is notable. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, enlighten me - what is its larger significance? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not every article has to be about a unique, trend-setting or incident of major significance. What was the significance of every small battle in World War I, or World War II that we have articles on? Or of every other article on a notable crime? Sometimes an event is just an event, and people's interest in the subject merits it's notability. The end. Lawrence Cohen  00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Those subjects are significant because they directly contribute to a larger significant topic - World War I and World War II. Where is the larger significant topic here? And what can be said of people's interest in any sort of long-term view? This is an hours old event. There is no basis for any claims of its larger popularity. Not everything that springs up on news sites is immediately worth preserving in an encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And not everything is worth killing on sight as an article. Perhaps you should relax and let the community decide without challenging every single person that says "Keep," which is a bit much. Lawrence Cohen  00:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I missed where challenging points of view and arguments was an unproductive way of contributing to a discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Challenge them, if you're so inclined, but if you have to repeatedly challenge each and every Keep it may illustrate the weakness of your delete position, if you have to immediately and hyper-aggressively challenge all keeps. It has the appearance of trying to enforce your own view over consensus, which won't fly. Lawrence Cohen  01:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously notable, how many other shootings have less than 9 people killed and have an article?--Joebengo (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, other crap exists. Please, though - explain what is notable about this particular shooting. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your point of view seems to be the minority. ThreeOneFive (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how that is equivalent to it being wrong or dismissible. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We're voting. The minority loses. See Democracy. ThreeOneFive (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT democracy. And this is not a vote. We're discussing the merits of the argument, and "nobody agrees with you" is not a meaningful contribution to the discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We're trying to get a consensus. When the overwhelming majority wants to keep the article, why should we delete it? Perhaps you have better things to do than insult the authors. ThreeOneFive (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Overwhelming majorities can be wrong. In fact, I find that when they rely on citing their numerical strength instead of the strength of their arguments, they often are wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the problem with democracy and consensus-building? Perhaps you would be more comfortable with fascism or anarchy. I find that "right" and "wrong" are not as obvious as you seem to think.
 * Ad hominem isn't much more persuasive than arguing by majority. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Trying to WP:OWN the page by pestering isn't either. Lawrence Cohen  00:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not an ad hominem argument; you say that the majority is often wrong and I say sure, but what's your suggestion? Doing what you think is right or wrong?
 * 9 people are dead in a one time shooting. Not to mention this happened only hours ago, your AFD is waaay to soon, at best.--Joebengo (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, article is way too soon at best. We do not keep articles around in the hopes that some day their subjects will matter. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why dont you propose to delete every article in this section because more than half of them have less that 9 people dead.--Joebengo (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the most part, I don't consider "number of people dead" to be the deciding factor in a massacre's notability. Many of those have other claims to notability - significance in a gang war, political targeting, etc. I note, though, that many of the ones most similar to this - the Carl Brown massacre or the Neptune Massacre, for instance - do not have articles. I would be happy to change my vote to a merge vote to the list of massacres, though. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ”'Delete”' per nom and User:HisSpaceResearch--Docg 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Surely America isn't that far gone that we're dismissing this as "just another mass murder"? FiggyBee (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. But I'm not sure that a mass murder is inherently notable. If it is, we need to bolster our coverage of the Khmer Rouge rapidly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, let's bolster our coverage. ThreeOneFive (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ”'Delete”' per Doc et al. mdf (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If the Virginia Tech massacre is considered notable to keep, then the should be kept as well. I live in Omaha, and this has crippled the city for the entire day.  This has even been compared to Columbine.  Shawn W (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine - and when it is compared to Columbine in the sober aftermath instead of the immediate heat of the moment, we'll have something. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this kind of article is exactly what WikiNews is for. Mr.  Z- man  00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep (and snowball) AFD is for articles that have existed for multiple days. Made it on to CNN's front page.  Tuxide (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And it will be removed from CNN's front page if George Bush chokes on his spoon this evening. The media has an attention span measured in hours or days -- Wikipedia needs a far longer view.  Let the media clusterfuck pass, and then gather what knowledge is available.  What is the rush?  mdf (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * CNN's front page, in particular, has been bad lately - the endless stories about the poor Iraqi boy who got set on fire, Paris Hilton, and the deadly amoeba have not given me a strong sense that CNN is interested in news as such these days. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant to Wikipedia or this discussion. Lawrence Cohen  01:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Untrue - evaluation of the merits of a source is very important to discussions that hinge on the significance of that source. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your funny view that CNN isn't a reliable source is noted. Lawrence Cohen  01:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the BBC, NY Times, LA Times, Yahoo! News? This story made all their front pages. Is it only CNN that you have a problem with? Perhaps we can remove the CNN cites to your liking.
 * Why the rush to delete? Having the article hurts nothing, neither does keeping it. Why not err on the side of caution? If you don't like the article, even though its notable, don't edit it. Lawrence Cohen  00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it reports negative details about recently deceased people that have not been useful context or given larger significance yet. And when the inevitable "list of victims" gets added it will get worse. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the future edits that you will find objectionable. ThreeOneFive (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What negative details violate BLP? Manner of death is negative now? And agree with ThreeOneFive. Watchlist the article if you're worried about the future. Lawrence Cohen  01:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * BLP is meant to prevent unverifiable, defamatory claims from appearing on Wikipedia. Clearly, what he did today is verifiable.  Tuxide (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The only sources to this article are mainstream media outlets, and online ones at that. Call me a prude, but I am less than impressed with them.  Especially when it comes to "breaking" stories.  That is to say, in addition to all previous arguments, I say "no reliable sources at this time".  Wait a month and add the article back.  mdf (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Our notability standards that are community-accepted conflict with your view, unfortunately. Lawrence Cohen  01:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Or wait a month and bring it up on AfD. I would have responded differently if this wasn't brought up on AfD the day it was created.  Tuxide (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are no reliable sources, there should be no article. mdf (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. The BBC, NY Times, LA Times, Yahoo! News and MSNBC are not reliable sources? I don't see how the information is not credible. ThreeOneFive (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any source can be unreliable, and just to trust them implicitly because they are CNN or the New York Times is a recipe for disaster. Consider  this, where a "reliable" BBC source changes, invalidating article claim.  (This is just one of several examples of this I've personally witnessed.)  Right now you are watching CNN, and they are just streaming pictures of grieving people, overlaid with whatever nonsense is coming out of some cop, pundit, or politician's ass.  Audience!  Ratings!  In a few days facts will materialize from the "fog of war", sources will become reliable, the current clusterfuck will dissipate, and life will return to normal.  Advice:  insert article at that time.  Honestly, does Wikipedia have to follow each and every mis-step of the mainstream media sources it cites?  Or can it keep a cool head, and rise above them?  mdf (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong merge into Westroads Mall to keep most people happy, with any luck.  Daniel  01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding with this nomination? Do you think we will not have an encyclopedia article on this event? Keep, of course. Videmus Omnia Talk  01:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no indications that this nomination wasn't made in good faith, so I'd suggest that no, this isn't a joke.  Daniel  01:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly snowball. Article is practically brand new. While I assume it was nominated in good faith, I don't think it's usually a good idea to bring a fresh article to AfD. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable event, mass coverage, and this is premature. Hello32020 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is absurd. This is a highly notable news event that likely ranks as one of the deadliest mall shootings in the U.S. and probably one of the deadliest shootings in the state of Nebraska.  There are also several articles on massacres of smaller scopes and smaller death totals. Abog (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, do you really feel someone doing research on shopping mall shootings will not find this article useful? That's the question you all should be asking yourselves. Abog (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. This is premature, and should be relisted in few days if debate continues.  All of the nominators arguements rely on the fact that there has not yet been time for evidence to build up.  I say give it time.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL? This is strange.  If there is no evidence, or at least reliable evidence, then why entertain an article at this time?  I can understand the urge to cut-n-paste from CNN to Wikipedia - it's exciting, your are part of the action, etc - but that's just not a productive use of resources (yours, mine, or Wikipedia's).  We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.  Long view better.  mdf (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep & speedy close as a joke nomination. --Czj (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. This is not a "joke nomination".  Daniel  01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge with the article about the massacre The massacre itself is notable, but I'm sick and tired about articles or excessive coverage about the gunmen in these situations. C'mon people, murderers shouldn't have to make history like this! Let's keep articles about people who have notable things (or are talked about on a large scale), not people who've killed just to have they're name in the papers. Cyrenaic (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit: I'm sorry, I this was the article for the gunman. I say Keep the article about the shootings then. Cyrenaic (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This event matters. If in three months we were wrong, we can have this discussion again. What's the rush? --CastAStone|(talk) 01:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There are abundant reliable sources describing the event, and it is sufficiently notable to cover. I see no reason to delete. Superm401 - Talk 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with CastAStone, what is the rush. There is an abundance of reliable sources that cover this incident completely. It seems to be notable for the time being at the very least. Woody (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable event, even more so for those of us living in Nebraska. I'm sure this article is not meant to focus solely on the murderer, just the event in general. On another note: Is there a system in place that flags users who hastily nominate articles for deletion? Good faith or not, to see an article such as this one to be so quickly nominated for deletion seems like abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MandarinRake (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I do know there's a system for dealing with users who make their first and so-far only edit to an AFD nomination. Superm401 - Talk 01:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Really? I'm sorry about that, but you have to start somewhere, right? Apologies for not signing my comment earlier, I am just now figuring this out. MandarinRake (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You do have to start somewhere, but new users almost never start with policy matters. More often, new accounts that first edit policy pages are sockpuppets. Superm401 - Talk 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't bite the newbs, please. Namecalling isn't necessary, and I've no reason to assume bad faith in this person.  Tuxide (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain. I couldn't find the article, somebody must have replaced it with breaking WikiNews before I got here.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 01:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable in one way or another. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Give up, come back and figure it out in a couple months. The article is premature.  The AFD is premature.  Ideally neither one would have been created.  If people aren't still paying attention to this in time, it should be easy to merge and redirect to the article on the mall.  Friday (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It probably makes more sense to redirect the mall article to the shooting, which is the notable one of the two. Superm401 - Talk 02:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable Francium12 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rampant deletionism has already made Wikipedia in 2007 far less valuable and comprehensive than it was a year ago.  This is not a print encyclopedia.  If you don't like this article, feel free to not read it; don't deny it to others who are interested. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- Not only do I agree with Lawrence King's comment above, but we have a whole damn category for such events. This is absolutely notable, and therefore this nomination is not only premature, but totally unnecessary. --Eastlaw (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Superm401. By the logic of this nomination, no current event is notable since it is not steeped in historical legend. Which is clearly not an acceptable conclusion. Jdcooper (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the brilliant reasons thus far. Trevor   "Tinkleheimer"   Haworth  02:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Can this be closed as soon as possible, considering this is a snowball keep? This AfD nom is currently preventing this article from being a candidate for T:ITN.  Tuxide (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep -- It's hard to see a dispute over the notability of this subject. As more is known, the article will improve, as is the wiki way, but the story itself is notable and well-sourced. It's hard to see the basis for the nom, aside from dislike. --Ssbohio (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not Wikinews, nor a memorial.- Gilliam (talk) 03:13, 6 December 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.