Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Las Vegas courthouse 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

2010 Las Vegas courthouse shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope. Transcendence (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator - subsequent edits illustrate lasting impact. Transcendence (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not notable. Can be mentioned in the page of the courthouse where it happened, but shouldn't have its own article. Not notable at all, really. Cyanidethistles (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep - multiple reputable sources establish notability for the shooting seperately fromt he courthouse itself. StuartDouglas (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EVENT, "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." This event has no historical significance or lasting effect. Also, "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." All the citations are from Dec. 4 and Dec 5 of 2010 with no followup since. Furthermore, consider "News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." Transcendence (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 'probably', 'may be' - and there are other, later references including this speech to the Senate which references this event specifically - http://www.reid.senate.gov/newsroom/pr_040913_reid_invokes_las_vegas_courthouse_shooting_while_discussing_gun_violence.cfm) StuartDouglas (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. News of no lasting impact. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep major, high profile event of significant importance. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that this AfD questions the very claim that this article is a "major, high profile event of significant importance", simply stating that claim doesn't seem to be a very good reason without further elaboration.Transcendence (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per StuartDouglas, WP:BEFORE, and WP:HEY. In 33 minutes, while also answering a telephone and the faculty room door several times during our busy finals week, I was able to find and add four pieces of information, with good citations, that this incident has had a lasting impact on court security and the issue of gun control.  The US House issued a resolution; the labor union of the late court officer honors him; the Texas Ass'n of Counties uses the shootting as a case study; and many other sources have noted that this incident has had lasting impact.  The nomination borders on the frivolous.  Do you want to build an encyclopedia, or do you want to troll the Internet? Bearian (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I must say, after seeing the edits, I was going to say you have a good point. But then I come here and see what you wrote. And you know what, I don't take too kindly to your words. I'm sure from your point of view this nomination makes no sense, but from mine it did. Just as from my point of view, it boggles my mind that you, as an admin, don't refrain from making personal attacks or from assuming bad faith, but I'm sure from your point of view, you have a good reason to ignore those guidelines. Transcendence (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2013 (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.