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 per WP:SNOW. I had previously closed this discussion as a snowball keep after only five "keeps" but the nominator asked me to re-open it. More "keep" votes were placed since then, so I'm calling this a snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amish school shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wikipedia does not post news stories, regardless of how many front pages it appears on. The case is proven by only one citation after the week of the shooting, which is dated six months ago. Will ^(talk) 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Huh? It is incredible that people want to delete such an article, as I saw some memorial for it 1 year afterwards, like September 11. It rocked the Amish, and it rocked the world. Let's delete Columbine High School massacre if we delete this. Plus there's articles in 5 other Wikipedias. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' 21:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:WAX. I don't see how this can be compared to Columbine, which was the deadliest school killing in fourty years (and had a long term impact), whereas this was a front-page story for one or two days. Inclusion in other languages does not mean notability here either. Will ^(talk) 21:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  A mindless killer that kills what, 9 Amish girls isn't historical info? And Columbine wasn't the biggest shooting for fourty years; just eight. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' 21:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep 35 citations is not good enough to keep this from being deleted? And the incident is referenced in the overall Amish article for their modern history with the Amish. Finally, it is an example of what some non-Amish view them. I'm all astonishment that this is actually for deletion. If I may be so bold, I believe that because the nom is from the UK he does not fully understand the impact this event had in North America -- thus the AfD. Zidel333 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it's perfect. Wikipedia has a self-admitted recentist and American bias which needs to be countered. A similar massacre would be Dunblane. Unlike the Amish shooting, that actually had impact that lasts ten years after the event. Will ^(talk) 22:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well It hasn't been 10 years yet, and I'm sure, when the 10 year period comes to an end, It will have impact. It sure had impact on the Amish community, anyway. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Will ^(talk) 22:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, so your saying that a massacre has to be at least 10 years old to have an article? Neither Columbine or Virginia Tech and multiple others are. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  From looking at WP:CSB ("Wikipedia has a self-admitted recentist and American bias which needs to be countered"), it seems to be more about expanding coverage of other locations and time periods than purging the encyclopaedia of recent or American topics. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep -- I strongly disagree with this interpretation of WP:NOT#NEWS. This was a major event and it continues to reverberate. Just because the article cites contemporary sources doesn't mean there has not been continued discussion in the media since then. Here's a Google News search for the last 30 days; while hits many are irrelevant, I count several that are. Still more articles appeared in the rest of 2007.^[1][2][3]. Then there's this book that's been published on the incident and at least two follow-up TV shows or documentaries in 2007.^[4][5]. It would be a mistake to delete something like this from our encyclopedia, especially when the editors of the article have so carefully documented it. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's history shows 830 edits (166 in 2007) by 395 different editors, including a number of admins. None of these would seem to have thought this article should be deleted per WP:NOT#NEWS. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, does this scream WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I count 35 citations, not 1. Also, think maybe we could move this to Nickel Mines Amish Shooting or something? Also, this is a notable incident, it did get national media coverage. ViperSnake151 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per above comments. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as above Marjaliisa 22:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 22:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems to have more than enough sources. I had originally SNOW closed this (stupid, stupid, stupid?) since there were four "speedy keep"s and a "strong keep", but the nom asked me to re-open, so I did. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I'm dubious as to how much good faith was involved in this nom. At best I think its a deep misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. This is pushing the definition of WP:NOT#NEWS to the absolute limit and then some. I quote from the policy the nom uses to justify his nomination; Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. This article does not come under any of those categories. Also try topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. You'd be hard pushed to argure this subject doesn't meet this criteria. Tx17777 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep this was one of the biggest news stories of last year! This shouldn't have even been considered for deletion. From the information i'm getting about why this was considered for deletion now, it is a case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. Doc Strange 22:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Somebody snowball close this already. I'd do it myself but I've voted and already tried to snow-close this. Nominator has given me permission to re-close this as a snowball. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:05, 3 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.