Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. With no prejudice to an early repeat AfD in case notability is not proven then too. Wifione Message 09:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks

edit
AfDs for this article:
2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly as a news story this has got coverage in the US, however there does not appear to be any "enduring historical significance" to this crime and the coverage that it is getting is just the sort of routine coverage of breaking news especially as it took place during the traditional post Christmas- pre New Year period when news is thin on the ground.
Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NEVENTS. Mtking (edits) 02:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects:
To elaborate on my !vote:
  • Wikipedia does not keep articles around in the hope that the topic may someday become notable. If we did, every high school drama student and prep school athlete would have articles. The process is first, notability, and then—and only then—article creation. If the event does happen to someday become notable, then it's no big deal to undelete it or to move a userfied version into mainspace. Keeping this around because it might someday be notable is simply against policy.
  • Those claiming that the first AFD has bearing on this one are incorrect. The result of that was not a speedy keep, it was a speedy close. That's because (as the page says) the nominator should have started a merge discussion, not an AFD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Too early to tell whether it is notable (see WP:EVENT/WP:NOTNEWS: a flurry of coverage on the day of the attacks and a few days after, even if international, doesn't demonstrate lasting encyclopedic significance), but if it does turn out to be notable due to historical impact or discussion in longer-term works such as academic books (I phrase it this way to avoid suggesting that I believe it might become notable due to what will be another short flurry of coverage around trial and sentencing before the event is never heard of again), it would be a shame to lose the work. To Magister Scienta: please be aware that the previous speedy keep is not an endorsement of the article, it's just what tends to happen when the nominator isn't actually proposing deletion. Also re your comments on the article talk page, you misunderstand the relationship of WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS - the whole point of the latter is that not every event covered in the newspaper is encyclopedic, which is why we have WP:EVENT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for now, to early to speak about sustained notability in the long run.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like the way we keep all those High School Soccer players because it is to early to tall if they will end up playing for FC Barcelona ? I agree with Roscelese above that Userfy is the best way to do preserve any work pending a clear indication of any "enduring historical significance". Mtking (edits) 19:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: YummyDonutsmmm (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: User:YummyDonutsmmm is now blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Daniel L. Barth. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does not address the policy issue here, this is an Encyclopedia and not a news service. Mtking (edits) 19:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it encyclopedic is that 100 years from now people will still look this up to study about, unless prevented by the 2012 phenomenon or whatever.--YummyDonutsmmm (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely, more likely than not it will be forgotten, and if it does come to pass then it can be undeleted. As it stands it is just a news reports no in-depth analysis it is just one of the countless crimes committed globally every day, what makes this any more worthy of an Encyclopedia entry than all the rest. Mtking (edits) 21:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:N/CA "...media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." Since this event is undeniably high-profile (that fact has been stipulated by pretty much every editor involved) and since the article's sources are reliable, non-trivial, and intellectually independent, it seems to me that this policy is a valid justification of the article's notability. Magister Scientatalk 23:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the coverage is only routine coverage of the crime exacerbated by the timing of the act, no "enduring historical significance" has even been suggested, let alone cited. Mtking (edits) 00:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues with your line of thought. 1) You keep on quoting the above line but please remember it's full context, "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance." Having an enduring historical significance is not an absolute requirement for an article but simply one way (albeit a common way) to establish notability for an event. 2) Even if this was a required criterion (which again I really believe it is not), the event is too recent to effectively be measured by this criterion. It's commonsense that when something can not be logically applied, it should not be logically applied. Magister Scientatalk 00:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a policy based reason and will likely be discounted by the closing admin. Mtking (edits) 00:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised; we had the Beltway sniper attacks back in 2002 and another D.C. sniper the following year. --MuZemike 22:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beltway sniper attacks: three weeks, ten deaths. 2003 West Virginia sniper: five days, three deaths. These attacks: four days, no deaths. I'm not seeing how the sniper attacks are relevant here. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Give the deletion requests a rest. It is notable, as there are reliable sources available on the topic, a lower threshold than most editors are aware of. Renew the deletion discussion in a month or two.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this has multiple non trivial coverage in reliable sources and is also a unique disaster.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you ever read the relevant guideline, at WP:KEEP? Are you going to argue, for instance, that "the nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption"? Or is this what I think it is, a hollow cry not based on any knowledge at all about our policies and guidelines, starting with WP:AGF? Drmies (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don't appreciate your unprofessional and inaccurate response, and I am going to disengage from further direct communication with you on any and all matters.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I don't appreciate your incorrect use of WP:KEEP and your suggestion (just read it) that the nomination was an act of vandalism or that the nominator was banned. If you don't know what you're talking about, it's maybe best to keep it shut. And if you are called on a pretty grievous error, you could try apologizing instead of whining about "unprofessional" stuff. In fact, as everyone knows, you were incorrect. Read up, kid, before you start throwing policy around. You're not on the playground anymore, and you have made a pretty serious accusation against the nominator. Or you're just ignorant. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Drmies, I understand that you feel passionately about this article's deletion (and you have made many good arguments supporting your position) but I urge you to be a little more civil in your remarks. By the way, as of now no one has countered my keep argument (specifically my rebuttal) found above, perhaps you would give your opinion on the logic of my argument and the rebuttal I made defending it. Thanks and I await your comments, Magister Scientatalk 05:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess you'll be refactoring this soon, since I haven't commented on whether this should be kept or not. And if you would read WP:KEEP, you would see that calling for a speedy keep means the person calling for it is claiming that the nominator is disruptive and/or a vandal. Shall we take a quick stroll through that guideline? 1. The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. This is not the case here. 2. The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and (since bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination) nobody unrelated recommends deleting it. Well. 3. The nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit. The nominator is not banned. 4. The page is a policy or guideline. Not applicable. 5. The article is currently linked from the Main Page. Not applicable. So, the only conclusion I can draw is that LuciferWildcat is claiming that the nomination is vandalism or disruption, and that, in this case, suggests a lack of good faith. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about taking a breath here, Drmies, before firing accusations of bad faith. An editor who apparently joined less than two months ago said "Speedy Keep" when he or she should have said "Strong Keep." Is this error really such an outrage? Who did this editor seriously inconvenience with this error? In contrast with, say, the sponsor of this deletion request, who, to take one example, requested a Speedy Delete of Alexey Pivovarov within less than 10 minutes of that article's creation last week. Instead of being able to build that article, editors had to deal with with Mtking's multiple deletion demands. Look at the article now that it's had a few days to develop and it's unquestionably notable, with the implication being that Mtking's attacks on the page right out of the gate amounted to editor harassment. In terms of the formal rules, he's within his rights, of course, but in terms of the project in my view it's unhelpful. All this to say that let's be pragmatic here and focus our fire on those who are interfering with Wikipedia's development, which LuciferWildcat doesn't seem to be doing since the "Speedy" of his "Speedy Keep" opinion can be readily ignored or discounted. Closing admins know, or should know, the rules for Speedy Keep anyway such that I don't think there is any serious danger of a "speedy keep" being applied here. The same can't be said of the deletionists since their AfD requests cannot be ignored, they essentially demand a response.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think people who have a clue should start throwing terms around they don't understand. The above user doesn't know what "speedy keep" means or what user talk pages are for, and the first person who jumps to their defense claims I have made good arguments to delete this article--which of course I haven't. So if you want to tell me to take a deep breath, you may; if you tell other editors here to start reading before they type, that might be more helpful. I suggest you also have a look at Lucifer's talk pages and interactions with seasoned editors: I am not the only one who has remarked on their word choice and lack of knowledge of policies and guidelines. Being a newbie is one thing, but it should come with a certain amount of modesty and a willingness to know the rules. Frankly, I'm tired of these AfD discussions dominated by people who can't tell GNG, for instance, from a hole in the ground. Can I exhale now? Drmies (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I clarified on my talkpage, I accidentally mixed up Dori and Drmies (I was very tired) in my earlier comment. I apologize for the confusion but I don't think my mistake has any gravity on the outcome of this discussion. Magister Scientatalk 16:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thank you Magister. I'm keeping my arguments out of this--I think we have a case of WP:NOTNEWS here, but the amount of coverage (and the recentism so popular among Wikipedia editors) will probably ensure that this is kept. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well for my part I'm "tired of these AfD discussions" that include so much repetition, if the AfD is even necessary in the first place. Mtking keeps repeating "historical significance" when one mention should not only be enough, but would allow for others to make a single response to that view. It would allow for a shorter and more representative discussion. In this case, you made your point with your first response when you pointed to WP:KEEP. Your second response just repeated the argument and accordingly added nothing substantive to this AfD discussion, in my view, such that this response could have and should have gone to the user's personal page. What's previously been posted to user talk pages is frankly off topic, what would be on topic is the arguments you say you are "keeping... out of this." re the "rules", these are meant to avoid repeated arguments over the same issues in AfDs, they were not brought down to us by the gods, such that intimate familiarity with them makes one some sort of Wikipedia ayatollah.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I can assure you that it happened in the US was not relevant, what is of relevance is the total lack of sourcing to demonstrate any historical significance to this event, it is a news story about a crime in which there was no deaths and no injuries, it got hyped up coverage only due to the slow news window between Christmas and New Year and the ever so sexy (as far as the media are concerned) illegal immigration issues.Mtking (edits) 06:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typical Wikipedia anti-Americanism. If it happened in the US, it doesn't matter, only if it happened in some other country. I've already mentioned the wildfires in Chile being significant, with little in the way of damages, and yet there's no question about that staying around. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/us/los-angeles-car-firebombings-set-city-on-edge.html
...Los Angeles is enduring its worst fires since the riots of 1992.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/la-arson-fires-most-since-1992-riots.html
...the wave of intentional blazes that started in Hollywood on Friday is the worst since the 1992 riots, officials said.
Enema For All (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC) — Enema For All (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2011–12_Los_Angeles_arson_attacks_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137517275"