Talk:Columbiana Centre shooting

Notability and title

What makes this shooting so notable that it deserves a separate disambiguated article? There do not appear to be any other Columbiana Centre shootings, so there should be no need to distinguish this particular one by the year it occurred, 2022. Surely, the title Columbiana Centre shooting ought to be sufficient. I know this event has saturated the world news channels with stories, but viewed from half way around the world this story is already dropping out of the news headlines. I suspect the likely ultimate fate of this article is that it will be merged into the Columbiana Centre. However, at the moment I would ask that contributing editors who see this as a distinct article justify why this article is notable and why it would be detrimental to merge the article into the Columbiana Centre article at this time. I am not going to take any bold actions at the moment and request other editors discuss any bold actions they may feel inclined to take, here first. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

From personal experience, there have been other shootings at this mall before. But obviously don't just take my word for it: https://www.wjhl.com/news/suspect-identified-in-columbia-s-c-mall-shooting-that-killed-officer/

Gamebuster (Talk)║(Contributions) 22:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and undo the rename. But if anyone challenges it, feel free to revert it back, as I have a conflict of interest. Gamebuster (Talk)║(Contributions) 22:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this article is more suited for the history section of the mall, rather than having a standalone page. This also doesn't seem to fit in with other shooting incidents at malls as reports say there were multiple gunmen who shot at other people that they possibly knew, not really an "active shooter" type crime. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe this article meets WP:GNG guidelines. There has been significant coverage. There are also reliable sources to back the coverages up, mostly from news reports. Plus, if you search up "Columbiana" on Google, you would find a lot of news articles regarding this shooting. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wikiexplorationandhelping: My concern is not that the shooting is merely a notable news event, (I accepted that it is, but ONLY as a news event), but why is this shooting is so notable that it needs its own page? We already have a perfectly good article about the Columbiana Centre and this shooting makes it more notable. My challenge is why do we need a separate article just about the shooting when it is already being covered in the article about the center, too. Why write about it in two places? When all is said and done and the justice system works its course, it is likely somebody else is going to sumarize all you have written and compress the key information it into a paragraph, or two, in the Columbiana Centre article. The trouble with this article at the moment is that it is primarily a notable news article, which Wikipedia is not. That means it fails the WP:N guideline at the outset because it excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. For anyone who wants to report the news, consider contributing to Wikinews. The trouble is Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so writing a very detailed article about this shooting is more like news reporting than an encyclopedia article. One of the issues with Wikipedia encyclopedic writing is that it is prone to hive off into article fragments and neglects expanding existing articles by providing a good historic summary. I am not saying this event is not notable and we should not write about it, it is, and we should. But I am asking editors to justify why they think this article is the best place to do it. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe: Ah okay, understood. However, I've seen recent events such as the 2022 New York City Subway attack, which happened at the 36 Street station, warranted a separate article. My proposal is that we'll wait for about 3-4 more days and see if any significant development of this story occurs. If not, I'd say this article can safely merge into Columbiana Centre. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wikiexplorationandhelping: Yes, a distinct article would also be warranted, perhaps, if you can find 55 more distinct news story with lots of new information and that are not simply variations containing the same information already reported in the 6 stories already cited. For me, the issue is the level of detail and coverage that one might achieve in a distinct article. If there was enough material to write more than a thousand words, rather than less than a hundred, a separate article might be justified. This article hasn't developed the way the 2022 New York City Subway attack article has, and I don't see this article is likely to that now. However, the current concise paragraph in this article is about the same amount of material as is already in the Columbiana Centre article. So merging the two articles will not overwhelm the Columbiana Centre article and give undue weight to the shooting as part of the mall history. I had expected that line of argument, which didn't come up. For me, now, there is no rush to merge the articles and setting artificial deadlines might miss any significant developments. No doubt the judicial process will take some time to come to a logical conclusion about the innocence or guilt of any involved and I would rather we take some time to let those processes happen, rather than rushing to conclusions. Now that this event has been written about, twice, there is little point in doing things prematurely. My suggestion would be to await the next development in the case, such as a new news article about the offender, before proposing a merger. Though if anyone else does want to be bold and merge articles they, should feel free to do so, while being aware the judicial process is incomplete. My initial intention of starting this thread was to freeze name changes and stop somebody moving the article to its current name, as well as have people justify why an article that was never likely to be more than a stub, anyway, needed to have a separate article. Unfortunately, that initial intent has now been subverted as the article has been moved, so there is no point moving it back to the original title, now, as what is done is done. Thanks for contributing to the discussion as it has also forced me to think more clearly about both the beneficial and detrimental aspects of distinct articles and news stories. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe: You are more than welcome. For now, let's stick with what we have and just keep this article name. There is a bit of a story development with some sources, new arrests have been made. I'll maybe add them tomorrow, if not sooner. As of now, I'd say no consensus to any bold actions. Side note: I read the whole reply. But, it's best to shorten your replies, as some users do not read replies if they deem it too long. Always here to help. - Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)