Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Markham home massacre

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Markham home massacre

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Tragic though it may be, this event does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. For one, there is no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: nearly all the attention this incident received was in the five-day period immediately following the murders, and all it's received since is scattered reports about court appearances (for example) and a single salacious profile. For two, there is a limited WP:GEOSCOPE to the coverage: Markham is in the Greater Toronto Area, and all the reports are from Toronto-based papers or the Toronto-focused sections of larger new orgs; it does not appear to have received wider play elsewhere. Finally, there's no indication that these murders, gruesome as they are, are particularly noteworthy: it has not received the sort of coverage, attention or outcry that other mass killings in Canada have, no major news cycle or public investigation (note the motive is still unknown), nor looks like there will be any WP:EFFECTS in terms of legislation, etc. This isn't at the level of WP:DOGBITESMAN but it's not high enough for WP:EVENT. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. It's useful. New3400 (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Useful" in what way? Please note that personal points of view are to be avoided in deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-07 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Seems to have gotten nothing but routine, local coverage. Mangoe (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no any long-term significance in this episode, whatsoever. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This clearly had a blip of local coverage at the time, but it's not our job to keep an article about every single thing that happens everywhere on earth. To warrant an article, this would need to show evidence that it was significantly more important than most other murders in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance, but there's literally no evidence of that being offered here whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately the article does not pass the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Also, massacres similar to this one occur many times, which makes the subject fail WP:MILL. I've seen many articles like this, and sadly, their subjects are very similar. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 23:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, the focal incident is, sadly, not inherently noteworthy. TheAnayalator (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2020 (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.