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 userfied to User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting. Talk page has also been deleted per G8. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was not listed at WP:AFD and it's probably too late to do so. It should be closed by the next administrator and maybe renominated. Your opinions here probably won't have much effect. Potatoswatter 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied[edit]

I've userfied the content at User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting for appropriate merging into the article on the C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute. FCYTravis 18:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting[edit]

I don't think this particular event deserves to be an article.As a school shooting id would seem notable, but from what I've heard the whole thing is more like a homocide that just happen to take place in a school.One person was killed, no one else was injured and only one bullet was fired.School shootings are more of a random spree killing where several people are killed and injured.And the fact that this event appeared nowwhere on Portal:Current events but the Dawson College shooting in Montreal did so on the main page illustrates the insignificance of this event. Rodrigue 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are any of those arguments based in Wikipedia policy? --ElKevbo 21:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclusion of a subset of this information or merging into an article about the school might also be appropriate. Flyguy649talkcontribs 16:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your point about notability is valid but your second point about not appearing on the Current events portal indicating a lock of notability seems completely suspect and specious. --ElKevbo 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't reference how Wikipedia covers a subject to establish the notability of that or another subject! That's circular, unwise, against the spirit of Wikipedia, and a monstrously slippery slope. --ElKevbo 16:17, 27 May 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.