Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Hebei tractor rampage


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

2010 Hebei tractor rampage

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A WP:MILL case without any lasting effect. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Completing an AfD request on behalf of 114.81.255.40 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep Looks like a fairly serious incident to me, comparable incidents in other countries with fewer casualties have survived deletion discussions, see 2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash. PatGallacher (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree fully with user PatGallacher. Also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep A mass murder of 17 people is not "run of the mill" and the choice of weapon and method of carrying out the crime was most unusual. The murders received worldwide attention in reliable sources. I added a source verifying the increase in the final death count to 17, and expanded the article with a description of the events. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete – Fails WP:EVENT, and is a product of journalism-like sensationalism. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The deaths of seventeen people is quite run-of-the-mill. I suppose Mr Cullen has not opened a newspaper on any given day. Regardless, number of deaths has nothing to do with whether an event is notable. It must have a WP:LASTING historical impact, and it must have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in WP:DIVERSE sources long after it has passed. This event does not have these things. A brief spike in interest at the time of the event does not make notability. It most have lasting encyclopaedic significance, and this does not. It is sensational tabloid tripe. Crime is rarely notable. Delete this article. Likewise, the Glasgow article should've been deleted, but people don't care about Wikipedia policies and guidelines these days. That's WP:RECENTISM, pure and simple, and it will be deleted in future. This article must go now. RGloucester  — ☎ 06:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: The proof of failure of continued coverage is plain: the only article even mentioning the incident after 2010 (and only a single sentence) is from examiner.com, a site on Wikipedia's blacklist.  Nha Trang  Allons! 21:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is a survey article Mass murder, shooting sprees and rampage violence: Research roundup that makes it clear that the study of rampage killings is important in academia. Here is a blog post, Guns don't kill people, Massacres do . . which I do not propose for inclusion in any article, but which shows one individual seriously studying various factors related to mass murder, specifically mentioning the Hebei incident in the context of mass killings in China. One function of this encyclopedia is to organize, list, cross reference and categorize articles for the benefit of researchers. This article is an important entry in our existing category "Mass murders in 2010", and ought to be part of a future category "Mass murders in China". Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Having been asked to take a look at Chinese sources for the article I'd say that sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources does exist to establish notability (see this search). The event is unusual because of the tractor, the number of people killed and (from a WP:CSB perspective) the fact that things like this are extremely rare occurences in China, never mind that they are actually reported by state controlled media. There is a secondary alternative to deletion beyond keep, which is a merge with School attacks in China (2010–12). Philg88 ♦talk 06:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ♦talk 06:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There's indeed in-depth coverage on this event. I searched for "河北铲车事件" on Baidu, and have found some reliable sources. Here are a few of them:
 * Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... ] 06:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as meets GNG. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any doubt that this article meets GNG, and I also disagree strongly that this is a "run-of-the-mill" event; how often do you hear of someone getting drunk and killing a bunch of people with a tractor? My concern is that, for once, people citing WP:EVENT/WP:NOTNEWS as a reason for deletion do seem to be correct; I'm not seeing any evidence of coverage after the first week or two. All I've seen so far is a Wordpress blog and an Examiner piece. Now, if someone can show a reliable source from 2011 to present that covers this incident in at least some detail, then I would be inclined to vote keep; as it is, I'd consider this a merge with School attacks in China (2010–12), since it is notable to at least some degree. Comparing it to recent events doesn't seem fair, accurate or helpful, since they're usually kept with the comment "come back in six months if there is no evidence of continued coverage". Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As this was not a school attack the rationale for this merge escapes me. PatGallacher (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going on what Philg88 said, and the fact that the articles link together somewhat. If that's not an appropriate location, then deletion may be necessary, if no proper merge target can be found. I think some content should be merged into Internet censorship in China, since it does seem to be relevant there. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , with respect, please refresh your memory about WP:NOTABILITY, which says quite clearly that a topic may deserve an article if "it meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". It says either/or rather than "both/and". If this most unusual mass murder of 17 people, reported in many newspapers worldwide, meets the GNG, as it clearly does; then it is perfectly acceptable to disregard the opinions of editors who quite absurdly call coverage of this event "sensational tabloid tripe", when every single solitary legitimate news outlet on the planet would report such an incident in great detail if it happened anywhere near their city of publication. Despite the fact that this particular mass murder happened in a country where the government does its best to suppress and/or "manage" bad news, the coverage still exists. This is a mass murder of 17 people with a bucket loader on the streets of a Chinese town. That's what it is and it stands on its own. It is not a school shooting as no gun and no school was involved. It is not notable as an example of internet censorship as newspapers around the world reported it without mentioning the censorship issue. It is a notable mass murder deserving an article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you need to prod me like that, since I generally do agree on the NOTNEWS/EVENT versus GNG debates with you. However, this seems to have had all of its coverage within a week, and absolutely nothing since; I'm afraid that it is a textbook failure of NOTNEWS as a result. It does deserve an article, but on Wikinews and possibly the Chinese Wikipedia. The government's censorship is essentially what has caused it to not have any sustained coverage. We may as well scrap NOTNEWS and maybe even EVENT if we aren't going to delete things that clearly do fail to meet them, as they're clearly not reflective of current procedure in that case. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going on what Philg88 said, and the fact that the articles link together somewhat. If that's not an appropriate location, then deletion may be necessary, if no proper merge target can be found. I think some content should be merged into Internet censorship in China, since it does seem to be relevant there. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , with respect, please refresh your memory about WP:NOTABILITY, which says quite clearly that a topic may deserve an article if "it meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". It says either/or rather than "both/and". If this most unusual mass murder of 17 people, reported in many newspapers worldwide, meets the GNG, as it clearly does; then it is perfectly acceptable to disregard the opinions of editors who quite absurdly call coverage of this event "sensational tabloid tripe", when every single solitary legitimate news outlet on the planet would report such an incident in great detail if it happened anywhere near their city of publication. Despite the fact that this particular mass murder happened in a country where the government does its best to suppress and/or "manage" bad news, the coverage still exists. This is a mass murder of 17 people with a bucket loader on the streets of a Chinese town. That's what it is and it stands on its own. It is not a school shooting as no gun and no school was involved. It is not notable as an example of internet censorship as newspapers around the world reported it without mentioning the censorship issue. It is a notable mass murder deserving an article. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you need to prod me like that, since I generally do agree on the NOTNEWS/EVENT versus GNG debates with you. However, this seems to have had all of its coverage within a week, and absolutely nothing since; I'm afraid that it is a textbook failure of NOTNEWS as a result. It does deserve an article, but on Wikinews and possibly the Chinese Wikipedia. The government's censorship is essentially what has caused it to not have any sustained coverage. We may as well scrap NOTNEWS and maybe even EVENT if we aren't going to delete things that clearly do fail to meet them, as they're clearly not reflective of current procedure in that case. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Our guidelines require significant and sustained coverage; they do not require that the coverage be in English. Several people have identified such coverage in Chinese. I sense a bit of WP:Systemic bias in the calls to delete this article. If this remarkable mass murder had happened in a Western country I doubt if this article would be questioned. MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! I would add that saying it possibly deserves an article on the Chinese Wikipedia raises a few questions.  We are the English-language international Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia of the English-speaking countries.  What each Wikipedia regards as the threshold of notability is its own business, which may not be anything to do with the countries where it is based, e.g. slightly oddly Argentine provincial deputies seem to be regarded as inherently notable on the English Wikipedia but not the Spanish Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem I personally have is that there is no evidence of sustained coverage in any language, be it Chinese or otherwise. Every source presented here in Chinese was from that first week, which is no different to the English sources. Also, different Wikis have different notability requirements, and I would guess that they're rather laxer on most wikis than they are on enwiki. I would make the same comment if this had happened in Reading, England, and the coverage had worked out the same way. All we need are one or two sources from 2011 to present, but I can't find any reliable ones, and no one else has presented them. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I can see the objections, but there are two separate questions: 1) Continuing coverage 2) Reliable Sources. That is, if I understand the criteria, each source doesn't have to be both continuing and reliable. The article has Reliable Sources, so the question is "Continuing Coverage." Tweaking Philg88's search to exclude "2010" here, I found hits which were hard to interpret, but more than enough to show "continuing coverage" even if they were not Reliable Sources. In addition, the ZH Wikipedia and the Baidu support "continuing coverage." ch (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a strange interpretation of policy, and I'm afraid an invalid one. Unreliable sources are completely unusable, and thus cannot be factored into anything; are you seriously suggesting that a Wordpress blog should be used as proof of continued coverage? Because you certainly seem to be. Can you please show some sources from the Chinese Wiki that are from potentially reliable sources, and are from 2011 onwards here? I will then be able to reassess my vote if necessary. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Looks like an interesting article and is unusual, although I'm Chinese, I've never heard of this incident, but it sure isn't run-of-the-mill or stuff like that. Thanks Cullen for telling me. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 03:49, 31 December 2014 (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.