Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Clovis library shooting

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Clovis library shooting

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Apologies if there is an appropriate speedy category. TheLongTone (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't a speedy situation. WP:RAPID is also in play - this isn't an event that is clearly not notable (it is covered quite widely by the international media) - a mass shooting (2 dead + injured) with a young suspect at library.Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep continuing wide international coverage on the 31st. Some BLP issues on incorporating part of them, but they still assert notability. LASTING is better assessed in the future.Icewhiz (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, spree killing with widespread coverage. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worldwide coverage, spree killing and of current international focus. Bkerensa (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - TheLongTone this was a good AfD but too many voters will ignore the WP:NOTNEWS aspect of it in favor of WP:RAPID. A fundamental flaw with their reasoning is they are basically asking editors to keep an unnotable article and hope it becomes notable. A better precedent would be to wait when a subject is actually notable then create an article. Revisit this in six months when RAPID cannot be used as a cop-out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly a quick look at your contributions show you frequently jump on the pro-deletion bandwagon of terrorist attacks and this article should stay there is precedent in these type of articles with this degree of notability and coverage. Bkerensa (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bkerensa what precedent is that: your personal opinion? I enjoy jumping on the policy bandwagon; in this case, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:LASTING among others I suggest you read. It may interest you to know that the incident is not being investigated as terrorism. Can you elaborate on "the degree" of notability with actual policies? WP:RECENTISM directs us to treat breaking news events and their corresponding media coverage differently than historical events.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this story is still developing, but that at the moment the AP is reporting that this was a spree shooting in which a youth walked into a library with a gun and murdered total strangers. WP:RAPID applies to creator and Nom, Creator would do better to source and expand the article, Nom ought to have waited until the police got a handle on what happened.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep ~~at least for now,~~ and give editors a chance to source it - and authorities and journalists chance to get the facts together.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Revising to just plain Keep; because coverage meets WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:recentism and WP:routine. This is an encyclopedia, not a new site. If it develops in to something significant re-create the article later. As the suspect is alive WP:BLP must also be adhered to. Sport and politics (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we do tend to keep spree shootings of strangers, and even work-related shootings like the 2017 Weis Markets shooting, also see Category:2017 mass shootings in the United States.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no content as it currently stands, it is barely a paragraph long, this is a total waste of wikipedia server space as it currently stands, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of all news events. Sport and politics (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's "barely a paragraph" but it's a waste of server space? And how much server space would that be? A totally hyperbolic comment. Juneau Mike (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, a better level of explanation is needed, than it is because reasons. Sport and politics (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an explanation. I don't need to write a whole paragraph about it. But if you want more of my opinions, OK: I think AfDs on major news events are ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time. A mass shooting is not a "routine" event of merely local significance—if it were, then it would be buried in the inside of a local newspaper and there wouldn't be a panoply of sources about it. Everyking (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article as it currently stands has three sources, the term mass shooting, is POV and not established here is 2 deaths and four injuries really a Mass Shooting? armed bank robberies can have more and they are not referred to as Bank Robbery and Mass Shooting. This is not a good article at all, and the event itself is generating little in the way of wide notability, to go beyond a news story. Sport and politics (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sport and politics, You misunderstand Wikipedia:Notability. The question is not whether the article is presently well-sourced, the question during AfD is: "whether a given topic warrants its own article. Moreover, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that deletion is not clean up, in this case the article in un-encyclopedic, and fails to meet notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. Simply waving about going KEEP KEEP KEEP to everything, turns this from an encyclopedia in to a news site, which Wikipedia most certainly is not. This article is a murder and not every murder goes on Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeon. Please do not respond to every comment made.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please make personal comments on personal user pages. Also please be aware of WP:boomerang Sport and politics (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mass shooting with multiple fatalities occurred at a public place. This is notable enough to have its own article supported by reliable sources WereWolf (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable since multiple fatalities/injuries occurred because of this incident. This is Paul (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly passes WP:NEVENTS with widespread coverage for this event. Greenbörg (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are users aware of the existence of Wikinews. If not then please go find it because that is where this belongs. Sport and politics (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The way the article is typed up violates WP:NOTNEWS. If the shootings had multiple critical responses or some sort of legislative effect, I think the article would have been worth keeping under WP:LASTING. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm going to go with a "delete" on this one. The article, as written, reads like a news report, even including the names of otherwise nn victims. It also contains content such as the killer's shouts of: “Run! Why aren’t you running? I’m shooting at you! Run!” This tells me that there's nothing better to include. As others have said, if this develops into something notable, someone would recreate the article. In the current form, this is not encyclopedic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no shortage of coverage, what we're short of is editors. Grand Jury convenes day after tomorrow. Op-eds, feature stories starting to come in, granted I live on a different planet from the concealed carry state where this took place and where someone wrote an op-ed suggesting that there ought to be a law specifying "No concealed weapons in public libraries " [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The way this article reads now is not conducive to what I'd say is a wiki-worthy article, but I believe with the right editors and right information, this article can stay, therefore I am sticking with keep, so long as information within the next 1 week that comes out as the grand jury convenes reads less like a news article. Definitely meets WP:Notability standards. Bryan C. W. (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate to write this, but two people killed in an American shooting is sadly all too common. Most lists of mass shootings don't even include them in the definition unless four people die with a few days. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, certainly a high death toll correlates with widespread coverage. On the other hand, it is the distinction between killing multiple people that you are personally connected with (gang members, family) and indiscriminately shooting at strangers that makes a crime into a national headline, as here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs expansion, c/e etc. But that is not a reason for deletion. This is a notable subject.BabbaQ (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable my curvy pink. It made the newspapers; not the same thing.TheLongTone (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Continuing coverage more than two weeks after the event exists [2], demonstrates its notability. At the very least, it should be merged somewhere. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources indicate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2017 (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.