Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Shiloh settlement shooting

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Asher Weisgan. and merge Spartaz Humbug! 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Shiloh settlement shooting[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2005 Shiloh settlement shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was a recently created article boldly turned into a redirect. Because there is now debate as to whether we should have an article on this topic, and because WP:ARBPIA means the creator can't revert, I am filing this discussion to break the logjam. I am neutral. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Asher Weisgan which is a long standing article that covers this shooting and nothing else. Weisgan is a BIO1E article whose contents duplicate this article - we should not have both.Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Weisgan would be merged here, not vice versa. Individuals known for one event, per WP:BLP1E are mentioned in an article on the event itself. The article I created addresses said event with different sourcing and more detail.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that TheGracefulSlick created this page. The long-standing Asher Weisgan was created as a 3-sentence stub, then shaped primarily by a leading pro-Palestinian editor. Dozens of editors have worked on it over the years, creating a in 2006 by an editor who is no longer very active, was built primarily by a leading pro-Palestinian editor, and has been edited over the years by several dozen editors into a reasonably good and long stable article on this mass shooting. It was perhaps not yet standard practice in 2006 to name mass murcers for the crime, rather than after the perp. But the original article is about the crime, it is not a bio, as page creator must have known because she linked her new page to the article about the crime. Because she is a highly experienced ediotr who regularly edits crime and terrorism-related articles, she must have known that she was creating a duplicate article. The puzzle is why she did not simply propose a new title for the longstanding article on this mass shooting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and internalize WP:NPA, particularly the operative phrase comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. None of your comment is in any way relevant to the topic of this discussion, which is what should be done with this article. Kindly stop. nableezy - 17:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both articles are approx. the same length wise, share some of the sources, and have similar content. Asher Weisgan has 2 working inter-wiki links (some of which are fairly well developed), and was edited by several editors over a period of 12 years - this should clearly be the merge target, to retain editing history and reflect editorial consensus. It might be worthwhile to rename Asher Weisgan to 2005 Shiloh shooting - but that's a separate matter.Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article on the driver should be merged in the article on the incident. --Mhhossein talk 11:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am baffled that someone would unilaterally blank and redirect this article two hours after it was created. It clearly has much more information (including vital historical and political information before and after the event) than the Asher Weisgan article. In my opinion Icewhiz should stay away from this article entirely, as he is making dictatorial, unilateral decisions and apparently harassing the article creator. Wikipedia is a collaborative venture, and ordering people around is counter to every single Wikipedia principle. This article is a notable topic and has important and encyclopedicly relevant information. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge One way or the other, I don't see how we need two articles on the same events. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge / Redirect from Asher Weisgan The essential story here is about the incident and the article 2005 Shiloh settlement shooting is the one that should remain, with all of the relevant material included there from the Weisgan article. Alansohn (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Alansohn. In this case Asher Weisgan is a long-standing article that, despite its name, covers the crime, not the individual. Whereas this new article was created by an editor who knew the first article existed, and seems to have had some reason she has not yet explained for creating a new article on a topic that had a stable, longstanding article. This editor had already seen the existing article (she linked to it,) and ought to have simply suggested a new name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but from Asher Weisgan, not the other way around. nableezy - 20:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge / Redirect from Asher Weisgan; the bio is WP:BIO1E situation so it's best to redirect the article on the person to the article on the event. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Asher Weisgan. The Weisgan article, a stable entry for well over a decade, is written in a much more objective and encyclopaedic style. Post merger, the Asher Weisgan article should be re-titled, per WP:BLP1E. XavierItzm (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this new article to the longstanding article Asher Weisgan. The creator of this article, who ought to have thought twice about creating an article on a topic that we already cover, can then, if he wishes, start a discussion on renaming the article. The appropriate renaming would be 2005 Shiloh shooting. Note also that the newly created article has an inappropriately WP:POINTY title, and the new article itself is WP:POV, and given the accusations article creator flings on her talk page "you seem to have a keen, immediate interest only in articles I create " User talk:TheGracefulSlick#1RR, the creation of this article may have be WP:POINTy. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casting aspersions at an AFD to try to “win”. Not surprised Gregory. Merging to an article that needs to be re-titled then introduced to new content is illogical. Note the disambiguation page Shiloh; there are numerous Shilohs, not to mention the the biblical city. Adding “settlement” clarifies the location immediately. And sorry but abiding by sources is not POV; if you disagree you are at the wrong place.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Settlement is a poor disambig, as most of the other Shilohs are small settlements. The biblical city ruins are adjacent to the modern settlement. Most of the other Shilohs (in the US mostly) are named for biblical city and are small.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No disambig is needed. I took at look at the numerous Shilohs, as GracefulSlick apparently did not. I looked because I had never heard of any Shilo except for the Biblical location where this attack occurred and the American Civil War battlefield. Turns out that I had never heard of them because they are towns that range from very small to tiny, a few rural American townships, and a couple of ghost towns. There is absolutely no need for a disambig.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? There is a Shiloh in Texas very much in the news today. I think the title of this is fine, and people who object to calling a settlement a settlement have other issues they should work through outside of Wikipedia. nableezy - 19:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the Shiloh Treatment Center, a health care facility in the town of Manvel, Texas.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:TheGracefulSlick, because you linked your page to the Asher Weisgan article in your first edit [[1]], you obviously knew that an article about this crime existed. Can you explain why you chose to create a new page on this incident, rather than suggesting that the existing page be renamed?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huldra linked the Asher Weisgan article, not me E.M.Gregory; I never noticed because editors do not typically edit others’ sandboxes. I noted my surprise at Huldra’s talk page and asked what I should do next. Any more assumptions of my state of mind when going in to creating the article? If not, I am just going to wait to merge and redirect the Asher Weisgan article—as is the logical and likely outcome—to here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The precise sequence seems to be Huldra editing the sandbox on 23 July, TheGracefulSlick mainspacing the article (by copy paste) on 06:38, 26 July 2018 and 3 minutes later 06:41, 26 July 2018 - posting the following at Huldra's talk - Hello, I recently created this article on the Shiloh settlement shooting in 2005. Thanks for linking to the Asher Weisgan article I did not know existed.. Now, as we are to WP:AGF, one must assume that TheGracefulSlick noticed Huldra's edit to their sandbox (and the sandbox being a duplicate of the Weisgan article) some 0-3 minutes after main spacing the article, following which they posted a query Huldra's talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to discuss this at length throughout the AFD. Only makes the closing admin’s decision easier for a reverse merge. Reverse mergers have cited BLP1E and my ability to provide more historical context than the Asher Weisgan article. When we speak honesty, we all know what the merge target should be; re-working the Asher Weisgan—when the content is here already—just because it was “first” is a waste of time. The usual editors got their little jabs in on me again, but it only strengthens my (and others’) position on this AfD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck. I accept that an editor who has created 298 articles, who created the article in a sandbox where it stood long enough for other editors to help edit it, and who regularly edits crime-, terrorism- and I/P-related articles never thought to check n existing article existed. But can you explain why a long standing, NPOV, stable article should be deleted in favor of a newly-created article?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing should be deleted. One should be redirected to the other. Both histories should be retained. The proper title however is this one, not the one titled after the perpetrator. nableezy - 19:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The merge target should clearly be the long standing existing article - and not a new creation copied over from a user sandbox. That being said - the title of the existing article should change to reflect current conventions.Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares, yall agree there should be one article on this right? Then why are you arguing over this? Really, is the merge target also a partisan issue? nableezy - 17:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy it is more like them having an issue with me. But whatever I am used to it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By Nableezy's logic, I can create a new article that duplicates any or every topic that has a page, then, when someone attempts to merge it into the longstanding, stable article that already covers the topic, I post a misleading comment on a fellow editor's talk page stating that the article "was blanked and redirected" without explaining that the redirect was to a longstanding, stable article covers the same material addressed in my new article [2] - and then argue at AfD for keeping my article rather than the longstanding article. to me, given the editing record of the editor who created the new article, it appears disruptive or POINTy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles' histories are preserved, so who cares? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do, because process is important.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Asher Weisgan. As sad as the event might be, there's no reason to cast a dark shadow over the non-involved and unsuspecting residents of Shiloh, as if they were to blame for this incident.Davidbena (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles on shootings are commonly named with the city/town/area in the title...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The merge target, for identical articles, has nothing to do with the best title (which would be 2005 Shiloh shooting) - following the merge, the merge target can be moved.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the older article, then rename the article 2005 Shiloh shooting. This preserves both the new work of TheGracefulSlick, as well as the editing history of the older article. Onel5969 TT me 11:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2005_Shiloh_settlement_shooting&oldid=1079438619"