Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbine High School massacre in modern culture

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. Re-closing as Keep as there was a clear consensus, and the previous closure did not put the oldafdfull tag on the talk page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 closed. It is clear the article will not be deleted. Beerest355 Talk 16:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine High School massacre in modern culture[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unsourced trivia like this is inappropriate. Beerest355 Talk 00:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even if this winds up being kept, the title should be changed -- it should probably say "popular culture" instead of "modern culture". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like it, but "in popular culture" articles are a fixture on WP. Of course secondary sources are needed to show that the reference was intended. (This could be an interview with the artist.) In some cases there does not seem to be a direct connection. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's inspired so many works that are well-known, award-winning, critically acclaimed, or from notable artists/writers/filmmakers, that it can justifiably be said to be one of the most important events to affect pop culture: from Bowling for Columbine to We Need To Talk About Kevin, Elephant (2003 film) to Vernon God Little, works have set the cultural agenda and scooped big prizes; plus the endless media debates about the role metal music and video games played which were in turn addressed in various media. It would be better to have more narrative/analysis, but clearly deleting isn't the answer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the main massacre article should have a section that details the most relevant cultural references. Having an article that is comprised of mostly fleeting mentions is probably a violation of the indiscriminate information policy. Beerest355 Talk 19:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic is clearly notable. The editor previously nominated Duck! The Carbine High Massacre for deletion and even refused to withdraw the nomination when notability was shown, as well as when it was nominated for DYK. SL93 (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't see why you are bringing up a previous AfD that I didn't withdraw. Why does that have any relevance here? Your argument consists of "it's notable" and then something which I guess is there to try and prove the fact that I can't see notability. Beerest355 Talk 19:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD is related to this topic so yes, I am showing that I think you can't see notability. SL93 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why a film relates to a list. Instead of proclaiming "ooh its notable alright" you could instead show how you think it is notable, like the other commenters, instead of bringing up a previous AfD which is unrelated to this article. It may share a similar subject, but that's no reason to try and slag this nomination as bad faith. Beerest355 Talk 19:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The film is the massacre in popular culture. I felt no need to expand on what others have already said. So, I will give a short reason without typing an essay, WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you disagree with me not withdrawing a previous AfD doesn't mean you should automatically dismiss this AfD too. I also think that it would've been better if you would've at least gave a short reason. Even "per the other arguments" would've been better. But I'm dropping the stick. Beerest355 Talk 20:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like User:Kitfoxxe I don't "in popular culture" articles, especially those filled with passing references, but I believe the massacre affected the psyche of America so much that this one should stay. When you have films and tv episodes based upon this event, books written about it, or withdrawn from sale because of it, then this "in popular culture" article becomes notable.Martin451 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Handwaving WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a not-so-clever trick for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The nomination does not list a single policy based rationale for deleting it. That said, this article is a very discriminate and clear-cut collection of popular culture mentions of a massively notable event, and as such it is an appropriate content fork. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:49, 9 August 2013 (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.