Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Albuquerque, New Mexico office 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   delete. No evidence that its notability will last. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 Albuquerque, New Mexico office shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A news item which violates the WP:NOT policy. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 20:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOT. Article is clearly written as a news item, and likely wouldn't pass WP:EVENT. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 21:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I deProdded it because there has been ongoing news coverage about the incident and its sequelae. WP:NOT does not apply to incidents with continuing effects and sources. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not really a notable event, just news.  — fetch ·  comms   20:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously as the creator. I believe this nomination verges on disruptive behavior; the article is a stub that could use some work on. Admin who decides on this, please disregard the two votes above mine which are simple votes without argument. How can the violent shooting of persons not be notable? This article was attempted to be speedied already, take a look at some opinions there of experienced editors who were against. Workplace violence is a growing concern in the US, and is definitely notable; that makes it a part of something larger, not ONEEVENT. This article passes WP:GNG. There are a gazillion sources. We have in practice been keeping these types of articles, I believe this one is an ok addition to the project.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are a growing concern but every murder or shooting doesn't need an article. If you believe this article can be saved, try and save it. Another recent shooting, Hartford Distributors shooting, is notable enough to have an article not only because of how deadly it was but because it has become a racial issue. --NortyNort (Holla) 09:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- Insignificant news-of-the-day. An encyclopedia is the sum of all knowledge, yes, but that does not mean every scrip and scribble that enters into the 24/7 news cycle.  People need to learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff here, to tell what has lasting significance or importance from what bubbles to the top for a few days and then sinks into obscurity. Tarc (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOM but maybe merge into List of workplace killings by number of victims if the shooter was in fact disgruntled.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - though I hate to say it, it seems fairly 'run-of-the-mill', with little to make it clear why this shooting is particularly significant. Possibly deserves mention on the list linked above, but not its own article. Robofish (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Incubate for a while, or possibly userfy if that's preferred. NOTNEWS is a serious issue at present, but that could easily change at any time. Since we don't know if it will gain continued coverage, we should keep it somewhere other than mainspace. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't keep articles around in userspace on the off-chance that they may someday become notable. Just delete it, and someone can request udeletion down the road if need be. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I used to think that too... until this. This topic has a far better chance of becoming notable than that one does (i.e. it's still getting some coverage), so userfication would probably be fair assuming somebody wants it. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.