Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Phantom Manhunt

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. henrik•talk 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Phantom Manhunt

Violation of Wikipedia is not news, no sources beyond local, prod removed by author of article. Delete This is a Secret ^account 18:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the current issue aspect of the gun store stand off. Everything else is sourced from what people have added. Not sure why it should be deleted. Also, it only has local sources because thus far no one else has noticed this story. It's pretty big in Austin. Please keep. Thanks. Oddibe 18:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikinews, take it there, just because it's big in your city, doesn't mean it should have an article, also read WP:N, and WP:LOCAL. This is a Secret ^account 18:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has implications far bigger than Austin. Also, there are thousands of articles that deal with events in just one area. I don't understand how that is the criteria. Does the event have to effect the entire state, nation, hemisphere, world? I believe this event will continue to grow. I'm confused by your attempt to delete this article. Oddibe 19:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it also needs to be published by multiple sources, preferbaly ones that aren't local, like CNN, or some place that isn't AustinThis is a Secret ^account 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does have several multiple sources, but no national news organizations. Does this mean it must be deleted if the national corporate controlled news groups don't cover it? I'm afraid for our freedom of speech and the press if such is the case. If all our sources have to come from Fox, CNN, etc then we are in trouble! Oddibe 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they don't cover it, that means it's not notable other than locally, that's why WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikinews exists, as this is an encyclopedia, not a news source. This is a Secret ^account 19:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just got picked up by the CBS News and here's a link from the CBS station in Sacramento, CA. The story from the previous week was on the AP Breaking News Wire as well.

http://cbs13.com/national/Austin.Gun.Shop.2.566362.html

I still strongly disagree with your belief that unless the national corporate-controlled media reports on a story that it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Anyhow, this does meet it. Also, when the Capitol of the nation's 2nd largest state is shut down for hours because of a gun man that dissapears, then that is big news. Are you working for the govt or something? Why else the need to delete this thing? Why not go after vandalism that is so rampant? Oddibe 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't work for the government, I'm saying that this is just a local event and there isn't notabilty, let other people comment on this article This is a Secret ^account 19:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Belongs in Wikinews, even if it gets "national coverage" Good example of how Wikipedia is plagued with recentism. Keeper | 76 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. this is interesting info especially the part that relates to conspiracies and other events. army helicopters, a missing gunman, a gun store standoff. very very interesting. i enjoyed reading this. more to this methinks. ChesterCharge 20:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being interesting (and I agree the story is interesting) does not necessitate a encyclopedia article. "Interesting" is subjective. Encyclopedias are objective. Belongs in Wikinews. Keeper | 76 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See WP:INTERESTING. shoy (^words _words) 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as local news that would do better on Wikinews. (Do we have a deletion criteria for when Alex Jones gets on about something yet?) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree with the interesting arguement for this article. However, I'm concerned about the Patriot Act and other forms of govt censorship. This story is one that to me falls in the category of Area 51 or the Roswell conspiracy. There are undertones to it that must be delved into further. I believe Ron Paul spoke about this manhunt recently on the stump in NH, but I can't find it on his website. This is certain a relevant and pressing issue. I'd like to see it remain and be expanded. EdRooney 21:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Everything you're saying here is an argument for deleting this and moving it to Wikinews. Encyclopedias are not places for "pressing issues" and to see what happens with the story. (see WP:CRYSTAL). Here's a conspiracy theory for you. Maybe the Phantom was in fact, Alex Jones trying to get his own ratings up for his local airplay. doesn't matter, don't care, not encyclopedic without reliable sources. And please don't tell me that Alex Jones is reliable....sheesh. Keeper | 76 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This paranoid drivel has no place on a serious encyclopedia. Any article which cites Alex Jones is pretty much by definition bollocks. Nick mallory 23:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have removed the information from the Alex Jones radio show since some consider, and I agree, that it detracts from the article. Also, why does Trapper-Keeper have to throw his two cents in on any vote he disagrees with. I vote keep and that's just the way it is. Good bye and good luck. LST421listens 19:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — LST421listens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This line of thought has been used before to delete articles. I think some people would prefer wikipedia only had 500 articles in it. What makes us (wikipedia) so great is the massive volume of articles on such wide topics. This is a keep for me. Let's not make wikipedia as boring as the freakin' World Book people! Chancygurl 21:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Chancygurl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Who is going to care about this in a month? It's a non-story, and there's no reason to keep it around. Rebecca 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because it was a slow news day in Austin, Texas, USA, does not mean that this is an item worthy of inclusion in a global encyclopedia. The fact that as I write this the article is still an orphan[1] reinforces its lack of notability. Looking more widely, all sorts of stuff gets posted to WP simply because it's the best-known wiki. The other wikis need better advertising to attract the items that are appropriate to them. --Smalljim (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought we are proud that wiki has so many articles on so many topics. Are we somehow running out of space? Since when has the criteria to delete been that an article may be forgotten over time? Don't we have a lot of articles that are obscure? This is a silly debate. Oh, and I'm also a former admin that quit for some time because of AfD debate death threats. Lots of lunatics on wikipedia I'll tell you!Ricksracks (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC) — Rickstacks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid. Do you have some reasoning for how this article meets the inclusion guidelines? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have blocked the three single-purpose keep accounts above, as socks. Thanks This is a Secret ^account 19:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-event, Non-story, non-article, belongs on WikiNews if it belongs anywhere at all, which is very doubtful. ELIMINATORJR 19:07, 17 November 2007 (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.