Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Connecticut workplace 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Connecticut workplace shooting

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

Wikipedia is not the news. How notable will this be in 25 years? Stonemason89 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noteable event in the history of Manchester, and the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.242.134 (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Manchester yes. United States, definitely not. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 17:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. A shooting killing 9 people will have plenty of WP:RS and easily meet WP:GNG. Compare this recent event. Lugnuts (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story is developing, and the article should be given ample time to reflect whether or not it is notable EmanWilm (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - all office shooting and what not is included in wikipedia. All articles with at least 5 dead are in wikipedia. keep this. 174.16.190.154 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the number of deaths alone makes this notable. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - notorious killing should be covered. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. How do you determine the notability of an event that took place 25 years ago? If the event had wide and significant in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources when it took place, it is and will remain an event with wide and significant in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources, also 25 years later. --Lambiam 21:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep debate is too hasty. Let it wait for a few months; it just happened yesterday. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - How the hell does this get to AfD this fast? Terrible challenge, there is absolutely zero chance this will no clear the notability bar... Carrite (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I think we should keep it. A man killing 8 people and then turning the gun on himself is pretty important. This also made national head lines. The Israel and Lebanon thing has a larger Wikipedia page! In that only 4 people died, in this we got 9 dead! This will be remembered 25 years from now! KEEP THE ARTICLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJISBEAST (talk • contribs) 00:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unusually large number of deaths for a workplace incident, and it got worldwide coverage. even though it may only be briefly notable, its not a news cycle item, but a news headline event.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plus WP:SNOW. To answer the nominator's question: some murders are encyclopedic entries, like this one: Colin Ferguson (convict) from 17 years ago, and so should this article. patsw (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Lugnuts and Patsw. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the deadliest shooting ever in Connecticut state history. That's "how notable this will be in 25 years". (64.252.34.115 (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Ocean Shores Formerly TEK (talk • e-mail) 14:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of articles about similar massacres in Wikipedia, and this one has received wide coverage in the media.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Severe Edit All shootings of this type disproportionately reward the shooter. The killer's name and likeness should be deleted from all public media, while the victims' lives and stories ought to be given full coverage. The newspaper coverage of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now Manchester is a disgrace--especially the way they pandered to the Virginia Tech shooter's craving for fame by posting his SELF PORTRAITS on the FRONT PAGE, as he KNEW they would do. CSI and FBI profiling units ought to sieze such a killer's possessions, down to the last paper clip, and only release them when a court would decide who owns the rights to them--such as the victims of such heinous acts. My Father knew Leo Held, another man who killed people in his workplace (Piper Aircraft) in a similar fashion. He was not there that day, but most likely would have been among those killed had he been on the scene. TAKE AWAY THE PRIME MOTIVATION FOR THESE KILLINGS, WHICH IS FAME, A DESIRE TO BE REMEMBERED. These nobodies deserve to remain that--nobodies. Let their bodies be siezed as well, for full forensic examination, complete dissection to discern any abnormalities. This would complete an appropriate erasure of their being in this world. WorkinMan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.84.25 (talk • contribs) 16:16, August 6, 2010

What does the above ranting and raving have to do with whether or not this article should be deleted? (64.252.34.115 (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Maybe a Wikipedia policy consideration, it's appropriate. For instance, we modified BLP policy for famous living people. I would say if the media wants to enact these rules, fine: Wikipedia should be a follower, not a leader. If WorkinMan has a problem, I would suggest arguing on a policy page.

But has nothing to do with this AfD. Ufwuct (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the law of unintended consequences, if we were to attempt to delete information on people who have committed evil acts, the lack of data could just as easily promote fascination, and end up with the opposite effect, as well as drive people to not trust reporting by newspapers, etc. people are polymorphously perverse, and no forcible attempts to change human nature has an entirely desired effect. i dare anyone to stop the interest in pol pot, adolf hitler, josef stalin, mao tse tung, all of whom could easily be considered as great attention seekers. also, not relevant to afd, as consensus here says we can have this article if notable enough.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major media coverage, major event in CT. JNW (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Borderline for a news event but I think it makes the cut. Widely reported. Shadowjams (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think a snow keep closure is inevitable here. And for the question about how it will be remembered in 25 years, I can see there are some other issues like racism involved in the case so it might as well be a example, in some 25 years, on how racism affects peoples' lives. Or deaths. Maashatra11 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of coverage on other similar events. If Wikipedia's policy is modified in the future to go back in and remove events like these, so be it. For now, this is a keep. Ufwuct (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The event is receiving significant coverage in the media. Maybe this event will have been forgotten in 25 years, but that is mere speculation. --darolew (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Given the nigh-unanimous support for keeping this article, it might make sense to apply WP:SNOW and close this discussion early. --darolew (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree EmanWilm (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2010 (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.