Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Hornbeck
Wikipedia is not wikinews, neither is it a crystal ball so arguing on possible future notability is moot. Is this person newsworthy? Sure. Is he encyclopedic? I don't belive so. I concur with Bwithh, in that that wikipedias purpose as an ''encyclopedia'' is being hurt by using it as a news outlet, tracking breaking news without regard to its historical relavance, for the simple reason that we cannot always judge historical impact until some time has passed, and putting everything that splashed on the front pages into wikipedia is counter to wikipedia's |basic policies of not being a source of indiscriminate information/news outlet/memorial. When an event is current, it always appears more notable, which is why I belive the best thing to do in cases like this is |let the dust settle before creating an article on someone - all living people too, so don't forget , most notably the "write conservatively" phrase. However, I have also found that if an article does get created, it is better to wait a short time before nominating it for afd, because, as the above debate shows, insults seem to fly becuase current events can inspire heated debate. However, an encyclopedia should be dispassionate, and more importantly, unhurried. Regards
— User:MartinRe, 11:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOT||WP:DUST||WP:BLP (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)