Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Notable, Article has also cleaned up since last year.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 04:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I nominated this a year ago and will now nominate it again, now as then this was clearly a important news story and at the time got coverage in the US, however there is not any "enduring historical significance" to this crime and the coverage that it got was the routine coverage that a crime of this type gets. The article makes no claims to any lasting significance and as such fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NEVENTS.  ✍   Mtking  ✉ 08:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly seems more than a routine news event as the plot has thickened. I would also like to say this crime is not routine by any means. Since it involes the guy,and his mom, and there are lots of articles out there on both of them. Like this one for example. Passes WP:EVENT because it "This page in a nutshell: An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." All of the criteria is met. This whole flying his mom business is weird, on top of the massive scope of this guys damage. Notable to me PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The coverage was only for a week around New Year's 2012. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except for NYT, CBS, CNN, LA Times, and ABC News]. The last being May 24, 2012.  Mkdw talk 22:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have to agree with PortlandOregon97217 that WP:EVENT is met.  The situation received significant, non-routine, international coverage in many reliable news sources (e.g. the BBC, the Guardian and the Jerusalem Post).  A Los Angeles Times news article about the story dated to May 2012 was already posted which provides evidence that coverage "persists over a period of time" --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, multiple reliable sources that cover the events in an in-depth manor to pass signficant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Coverage is beyond WP:ROUTINE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources given in the article make it abundantly clear that the subject is notable. I don't see how the nominator can characterize that kind of coverage as "routine". Everyking (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOTNEWS says in the first sentence: "  editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events  ". Essentially it's very difficult to prove this event isn't significant with the length of coverage its received. Your argument must rely mostly on your personal opinion as the basis of it not being a significant current event. Mkdw talk 22:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough sources have been provided to indicate that this is worthy of a stand alone article. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 03:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep According to WP:N/CA, "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources". As far as I can see, the event (or serial of events) reached significant media coverage, and the article is well written and well referenced with RS. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:54, 11 January 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.