Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuccessTech Academy shooting (2nd 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: as this article cites significant coverage of its topic in multiple, third party reliable sources in the references section, the incident is presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. WP:NOT#NEWS has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. Whatever the merits of ever raising WP:NOT#NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious WP:BLP issues^[1], 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". John254 00:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1. ^ WP:NOT#NEWS was added to WP:NOT during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "[keep] in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." The extent to which WP:NOT#NEWS ever applies to any articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful. Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers.

[edit] SuccessTech Academy shooting

SuccessTech Academy shooting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a news service. We don't need a page for every school shooting. Will ^(talk) 00:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for now. per nom. Why have an article for these "minor" shootings (in comparison to Columbine or the Virginia Tech Massacre, which also have much more content). I agree, Wikipedia is not a news service.
  • Keep for now. Maybe its importance will emerge later. I guess we should give it some time. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 ^{My Talk} _{Sign Here!} 00:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see any importance being merged to this article, no one died or even got critically hurt, the only difference between this and any other shooting is that it happened in a school. Jbeach56 00:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Hm? No one died? --Kizor 01:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I think Jbeach56 means that no one besides the shooter died or was critically injured. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to the school article, doesn't deserve an article on it's own. Jbeach56 00:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge as per nomination and suggestion by Jbeach56 - very sad news but cannot see how it is otherwise notable - if it was in another country may be but there have sadly been too many such incidents in the US. It is a shame that this was brought back to AfD so soon - as per the article talk page there was probably no urgency and it could have waited for it to become quite clear that this was merely a news story. --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep impossible to judge the importance of such an event when it's still breaking news... as with past articles like the London bombings that have come to AFD, it is logical and (as far as I know) backed up by consensus to just wait a few weeks for the AFD in situations like this. --W.marsh 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Tech massacre, which was deleted, but occurred on the day of the shooting and some people made arguments similar to mine. Good thing we kept that article, huh? --W.marsh 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That AFD was created by a disruptive SPA and it was three days after the event, not the day of. --B 00:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Still, people made similar arguments. You can see another two AFDs linked to here Talk:2007_London_car_bombs and the DRV of those AFDs, I think, showed consensus to just calm down and wait on breaking news stories that are getting a lot of coverage. --W.marsh 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Are we looking at the same page? At [1], I see the original nomination and then nothing but keeps and speedy keeps. Am I looking in the wrong place? --B 00:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I think so... with arguments like "As the situation is still developing, and the coverage in the States is enormous, it's practical to leave it standing" isn't the similarity clear? --W.marsh 00:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Ok ... I misunderstood what you were saying. --B 01:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If we don't know the significance, why would we have an article on it? This is an encyclopedia, not a news service. I'm all in favor of quickly resolving it just so that a high-traffic page won't have that shiny red template on top of it (it really looks unprofessional for visitors), but I don't see any reason to keep it just for the sake of keeping it. --B 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • When in doubt, don't delete? It's not like having one article for a few weeks is any meaningful strain on resources... better to keep it and be on the safe side than delete it and realize in a few weeks we got it wrong, considering it costs us nothing to play it safe. --W.marsh 00:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Hear, hear. --Kizor 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak merge - we're obviously not going to delete it as this title needs to exist, either as an article or as a redirect. I'm really on the fence, but according to List of school-related attacks, there have been 13 high school attacks and 5 college ones this year. I'm not convinced that we need articles about any but the largest of them. --B 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a news service, and there's no evidence that this shooting has had any impact beyond the school in question. --Carnildo 01:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• This article was also speedy kept earlier today: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuccessTech Academy shooting... no reason given for reopening the nomination within hours. --W.marsh 01:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That AFD was originally created because the nominator incorrectly believed it to be a hoax. That AFD only considered whether the incident was real, not whether or not we should have an article on it. It was speedy closed by a non-admin and attempts to re-open it so that a discussion could be held on whether or not we should actually have an article were reverted. Thus here we are.--B 01:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is the third round but the AfD wasn't closed officially between the first tagging of it as AfD and the second (post-hoax confusion) tagging of it. I'm not clear on how such things work but the tags on the article page were removed without apparently the discussion being formally closed (history should show folks like me thus entered two votes in the same apparent AfD cycle, and I even posted a confused "AfD again?" At any rate, there was plenty of discussion about the article's AfD after the hoax issue was resolved. - Ageekgal 02:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, keep it for like a week, then when there is more information on the subject, we can make a better a judgemnet on whether its important enough for its own article. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Mr. Crabby -- False Prophet 02:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deletion at this stage is premature. There are certainly plenty of sources and it is certainly notable *now*. AFD can be considered in a few weeks... what's the rush??? Jerry 02:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now. If, in a few months, the shooting is clearly of no historical importance, I would have no problems with a re-nomination. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now - It could be really important, like the Virginia Tech incident, we just haven't given it enough time to see what happens. It was only today. Neranei (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a news service. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP is not Reuters, neither is it a memorial venue. This is just one more shooting in a long list so it's not particularly notable. It may possibly warrant a 2 sentence paragraph in an article on school shootings but not its own article. ---- WebHamster 02:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now - This is the third time I've had an option to vote. Remains same for reasons given by others. Even if time bears out this article cannot/should not stand on its own due to non-notability, then it's surely a Merge? - Ageekgal 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability isn't body count. Notability is what the public thinks it is, and news coverage is a good guide for that. School shootings are never quickly forgotten, for the public takes them as an indication of gross social dysfunction, as well as of the immediate tragedy. That there are too many incidents in one particular country makes them all the more notable. Even were there one such terrible event a day, we have room for them. Some common sense is needed about what happenings will be worth attention in WP. DGG (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per W. Marsh, and because AfD arguments are premised on the incident and not the varied volumes of media frenzying. ThuranX 03:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I made this article this morning because a lot of school shootings have articles, but agree that a lot of them SHOULDN'T, and I think this is one of them. Titanium Dragon 03:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• merge into school article, which itself did not exist until this morning. Chris 04:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, revisit in a month or two. I must admit I severely doubt this will have any long-standing notability, and will probably end up recommending deletion in a prior debate, but until the smoke clears we cannot be sure. It's far too early to make a realistic decision on this yet. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 05:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jerry. Anchoress 08:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not really notable, this eent is nothing unprecedented. --Philip Laurence 12:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep...this just passed AfD yesterday. It's also linked off of the Current events portal.- Smashville 13:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No, the original AfD was withdrawn by the nominator because the original reason for deletion was a hoax. That reason was withdrawn. This is an entirely different reason -- lack of notability. Corvus cornix 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as per comment directly above Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Revisit the issue 8 weeks from now, the current U.S. coverage of this event is just too overwhelming to obtain a consensus to delete right now. But speedy delete the Asa Coon article and redirect. Yesterday. Burntsauce 15:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Its an important enough event, but also should be merged with an article about other school shootings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.103.2 (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unfortunate as it may be, this is just a run-of-the-mill shooting. The only death was that of the alleged shooter. Why should we ignore WP:NOTNEWS and revisit it weeks or months down the line? Why not do it the opposite way? Delete this now because there's nothing noteworthy about the shooting, then only recreate it if it proves somehow noteworthy later on? Corvus cornix 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is important!!!!!!! This happens to much in our schools, and it needs to stop, keep to inform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A98726 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Reason for ignoring WP:NOTNEWS, for starters, is that it is an essay that doesn't mesh well with current policy. This is not just news, it is the number one headline on Google News. Unless we're going to do away with the In the news section of Wikipedia entirely, a feature which appears on the Main Page, I think it is safe to ignore the WP:NOTNEWS essay in this instance and apply old fashioned common sense. Many encyclopedic stories make news headlines, and NOTNEWS is hardly a reason for excluding them. RFerreira 18:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per Smashville. Rob T Firefly 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Smashville's comments have been proven to be invalid. Corvus cornix 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Not to me, they haven't. I stand by my !vote. Rob T Firefly 16:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Certainly Keep This event is a part of a mounting epidemic of school violence in this country, and a record of these events needs to be kept here. The statement above that this is another "run of the mill shooting" because "no one died" is an equally important and sad commentary on our times. These acts are tragic and unacceptable in a civilized society when they occur ONCE; their repetition should augment our concern, instead of diluting it. Ask any of the students that attended that school if they thought this was just another "run of the mill" event. This article absolutley needs to be kept.Solace098 18:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment...I hate to sound soapboxy, but here goes...some are arguing that because only one person died and it was the shooter, that this is not notable. The WP criteria for notability are:
  • Presumed. Obviously, there is no doubt that the shooting took place.
  • Significant Coverage. The lead story in virtually every American news source...that makes for significant coverage.
  • Reliable. Considering the NYT, CNN, and virtually any other news media can be used as a source, there are thousands of reliable sources.
  • Sources. There's no doubt about this one.
  • Independent of the Subject. All of the sources are independent from the school.

It meets the notability criteria. It meets the notability criteria now and it meets the notability criteria 5 years from now. WP:NOTNEWS is not a policy and should not be taken into account when making a deletion and the fact that it is being used as the main argument for this AfD means that it should be speedily kept. The nominator's reasoning is based on a non-policy and an unexplained opinion with no basis that we don't need an article on every school shooting. Why shouldn't we have an article on every school shooting? There seem to be about 10-12 per year. It's not an insurmountable task. There are usually a ton of sources for each one. The fact that each one makes the national news makes them notable. Furthermore, for the arguments that "only one person died" begs the question...should we have a policy on how many people get killed before we consider a nationally covered school shooting notable? Smashville 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BAND is not a policy, and yet it is used over and over again in discussions as to the notability of musicians and bands. It is used in an attempt to explain how notability can be assessed in order to determine whether or not an article meets WP:N, which is policy. Speedy close just because you want something kept is hardly a valid !vote, either, so perhaps your comments should be ignored, as well, since WP:ILIKEIT isn't policy, either. And where do we stop? Why should only school shootings have articles? Why not the multiple murders in every major city in the United States every year? Corvus cornix 20:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and BTW, this event is not the number one article on Google News. This one is higher. Who's going to write the article on this? Corvus cornix 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Where at any point did I argue that the article should be kept because I like it? Arguing notability is hardly arguing that I like it. The fact of the matter is that it's notable and WP:NOTNEWS is an essay meant to explain why every traffic accident doesn't get an article despite having independent sources. The reason that school shootings are notable as opposed to murders is their rarity. Of all the murders in the world, there are still only 10-12 that occur in schools each year. It has become a hot-button topic, but that doesn't make it any less notable and in no way whatsoever was my argument based in any way on WP:ILIKEIT. I mean, what part of detailing each of the 4 main notability guidelines fell into that criteria? Smashville 20:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT Wikinews. We are not a group of journalists, we are not a news agency, we are an encyclopedia people!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This argument just makes no sense to me. Despite the fact that thousands of sources will be available in the weeks and months and years to come, the fact that it's recent means that people argue that Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Smashville 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and Transfer to Wikinews This is not wikinews. We shouldn't be making an article every time a school shooting happens. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Discretionary neutral. It's still too early to determine the significance of this as compared to other school shootings, so a judgment as to notability can't be made now. –Crazytales♥♥ 23:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Begrudging, reluctant keep: It is our job as Wikipedians to report what the media thinks is notable, whether or not we think it is notable. shoy 00:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to school shootings. Our job isn't to report what the media thinks is notable. If that were the case every single news conference ever given would warrant their own article. Front page news does not equal encyclopedic content. Newspapers and online news sources are the easiest to find and the easiest to access, and because of that people often fight for these articles that are, in the scheme of things, front page stories that disappear from national media coverage after a couple of weeks. It's not a very notable story. AniMate 05:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All kinds of news stories get covered in depth (such as a Minnesota bridge collapse that killed "only" 13), and this was front-page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The Minnesota bridge collapse led to extensive discussions of the condition of roads and bridges in the United States. This shooting seems to have vanished from the news after one day. --Carnildo 19:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Not having your TV on doesn't constitute a story vanishing from the news. Last I checked, it's still being covered by the news media (TV, print and web, as well as radio), two days after the shooting (shooting was Wednesday, not Thursday.) Anyway, I don't know what's going on with this as there are ample Keep/Neutral/Revisit Later votes, but now we have an anonIP editor removing the AfD without (it seems) proper closure. - Ageekgal 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Touché! I just saw a report on CNN with pictures of the shooter and friends of his (electronically masked) talking about him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • And a follow-on story is on USAToday.com's front page today, about a woman buying guns for her son. One story heightens awareness and helps feed coverage of the next one. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Touché? Touché? (rolls eyes) Gimme a break. If people want to follow this story, they can go to WikiNews. People always scream about entries that have coverage in major news publications being notable. It doesn't. Sitting back and waiting to see if this really plays into the publics awareness and the debate on how to stop school shootings is what should happen on something that is borderline like this. This shooting, while tragic, doesn't really satisfy the threshold for notability, except in a "tabloidy we want people to tune in to our broadcast or buy our paper" way. AniMate 21:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
          • The argument was made that the story had disappeared, and that was a verifiably false argument. In reading through the "delete" comments, a common thread appears to be a POV grudge against the way news is covered. That is not our place to judge. If the major news sources say it's notable, it is not our place to override that with our personal dislike of the major news sources. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
            • The media doesn't gauge what is notable on Wikipedia, WP guidelines do that. The media just gauge what is 'printable'. The two aren't necessarily the same.---- WebHamster 22:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
              • (ec)How dare we question the media?!? Seriously, though, everything reported by the media isn't encyclopedic. There are front page stories about celebs, for instance, that don't make it into wikipedia, because in the grand scheme of things they aren't notable. Is this front page news? Yes. Is all front page news notable? No. Every single news story doesn't need their own entry here. That's why we merge things, which is an argument I think you unintentionally made above. One story heightens awareness and helps feed coverage of the next one. If this were truly notable, we wouldn't need separate news stories to feed into it, it'd stand on its own. It really doesn't, and I think your sources that we can't question will reflect that in less than a month. AniMate 22:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
                • The issue of whether a current news event is "notable" appears to be strictly a matter of opinion, i.e. "POV". Right now I'm hearing more coverage of this story on local news in Minneapolis. The story still has legs, although the media haters would wish otherwise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
                • T*It's got "legs" because it has ratings-appeal, not because it's notable. ---- WebHamster 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
                  • It is your personal opinion that it's "not notable". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
                    • Why does that matter? It's also your personal opinion that it is notable. If you want to repeat everything you read in the media, why not go to WikiNews? And for the record, I do not hate the media, as most of the sources I use to contribute are media publications. I just don't think every front page scandal is encyclopedic... and I hope you don't either. AniMate 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
                      • If Casey Wise is notable under wiki guidelines, then so is this story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The event was notable and some people will definitely want to read about it. Besides, it's presence certainly isn't hurting anything here so why's everyone all up in arms to delete the article? Abyssal leviathin 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. These articles get started on every new sensationalist news story to come down the pike, and then six months later the article is still hanging around pointlessly. People who enjoy writing this kind of thing: Wikinews is the appropriate place for it. Start yourself a Wikinews account and go to town! It is not appropriate here. Dybryd 22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:NOTNEWS is simply an essay, that's true. However, it is an essay that expands on the section of official policy WP:NOT#NEWS, which reads in part "Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." That's policy, folks. Dybryd 22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. That's a guideline. I failed to make the distinction often enough until recently, but it's important enough to be precise anal for. The policies - V, OR, NPOV, amusingly IAR, some things on things like copyrights and civility - are ends in themselves, or close enough to make no difference. They're inarguable. The rest aren't. (And even so, ask ten editors how to interpret OR and you'll get five different answers...) Guidelines are tools for making a good encyclopedia, ones that deserve some respect but are definitionally not binding in themselves or the final word on their topics, and can lead to undesirable situations. Now that we've made the distinction, maybe in the future I'll get to the rest of your argument! --Kizor 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well, WP:NOT says it's official policy at the top of the page. And here it is in the template "policylist" Dybryd 00:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I'll just sign off for the rest of the night, shall I? *cough* --Kizor 01:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I believe WP:NOT#NEWS exists more for random trivia that ends up being briefly newsworthy. The examples given are "announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism" - this is hardly on the same scale. There's every reason to believe that a school shooting will easily meet notability. At least I hope so - it's a rather sad state of affairs if school shootings are so common in America that they're considered non-notable trivia! Mdwh 23:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment At most, it should be merged into SuccessTech Academy. Many schools have their own Wikipedia page, and it seems reasonably that such a page should cover a notable event such as this. Mdwh 00:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems an eminently more reasonable idea than an article of its own. ---- WebHamster 01:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There are more than enough sources to cover this as a notable event. • Lawrence Cohen 06:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- per the above reasoning, some delete artists who have a grudge IMO, this is clearly keepable.JJJ999 11:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - there is a horrible systemic bias towards the US, especially towards news articles. For example, this, and like the UoF tasing only got a couple of days coverage but have an article. In the UK, Nothern Rock's financial crisis and the Diana inquest has been front-page news over here for at lest a couple of weeks, but they only have subsections. Will ^(talk) 11:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I for one would have no objection to you expanding coverage of notable happenings in the UK. :) Abyssal leviathin 16:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep! Yes, Wikipedia is not a news source. But it's an encyclopedia. Isn't Wikipedia a website devoted for people to learn? If SuccessTech Academy shooting was deleted, a lot of people would be missing out on what happened. Yes, there are news websites. Not everyone listens to the media. Not everyone wants to look around the internet for every detail of the shooting. They can just go to Wikipedia and BAM, there it is. I hope I didn't make myself sound like an idiot here.. Like I always do.--Xxhopingtearsxx 23:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also covered (where it's most appropriate, IMO), at SuccessTech Academy. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 13:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Even though this is not a newspaper, this was significant. The fact that there are many shootings documents a trend, and wikipedia provides a historical research function through the detailing of many such incidents. Often, significant reports are no longer available online at various newspapers, and then wikipedia becomes a keeper of the historical record. There probably should be a some way of sorting out the US news bias noted above. Obviously there should be a main article on School shootings in the USA, with a pointer to the stories on individual incidents. I see no problem with stories on individual incidents. Ema Zee 12:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You might talk to WikiProject Countering systemic bias. shoy 12:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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.