Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuccessTech Academy shooting (3rd 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuccessTech Academy shooting[edit]

This is the third time this has been nominated. The first two were immediately following the shooting, which definitely clouded everyone's judgment. Let me preface by saying that this nom has nothing to do with a lack of sources...it's a question of notability. Two months later - after I strongly argued for keep in the first AfDs, I believe this does fall into WP:NOT#NEWS. When it comes down to it, it was merely the biggest news story on the day it happened. The event made the school notable...but - in hindsight - it doesn't seem that the event itself was all that notable. Deleting the article and merging the content into SuccessTech Academy - I believe - would serve the best purpose. Smashville^BONK! 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability for the event. I believe that this is just abuse of WP:CONSENSUS. If consensus can't be accepted when articles are kept, why should it be accepted if you can round up enough people to delete the article. "Consensus can change" requires legitimate efforts at discussion prior to taking another stab at AfD, and no evidence has been provided to justify abuse of Wikipedia process for a clearly settled matter. Alansohn (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to assuming good faith? --Smashville^BONK! 23:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It went away when everyone's judgment was clouded. What happened to respecting consensus? Alansohn (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consensus can change. My opinion changed. The AfDs were the day of and the day after the shooting. It's two months later. --Smashville^BONK! 02:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - A read of the closure of the most recent AfD on this article, which closed barely six weeks ago, stated that "WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here. Indeed, WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of this incident cited in SuccessTech Academy shooting#References would therefore suggest that this incident is, indeed, an 'encyclopedic subject'." Nothing has changed in the interim that would undermine this conclusion. A thorough disrespect for consensus is never acceptable. Continued abuse of consensus only undermines any respect for whatever result may be achieved in this third attempt at deletion, and the forthcoming third, fourth, fifth, etc. attempts that will be undertaken in the future. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not expire. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to withdraw the nom due to the fact that my actions are being viewed in bad faith. --Smashville^BONK! 04:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nominator says this is not notable. However, in its article on the Westroads Mall shootings, the BBC News website refers to this event in a timeline of 2007 US shootings. Surely that suggests that it's notable? 81.159.254.193 (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I.P.'s can't !vote, sorry. Scarian ^Talk 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is notable. Scarian ^Talk 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable enough to warrant its own article. Qwerty (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (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.