Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Texas A&M University 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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Texas A&M University shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Just not notable. The situation, while tragic, isn't going to demonstrate much in the line of enduring coverage. As noted at the ITN discussion, there are car accidents with much larger fatalities that aren't given articles.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing special, just normal shooting . --Stryn (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC) edit: I mean that all the shootings are not significant. --Stryn (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost borderline funny, "just normal shooting". Wow, you guys live in a different world.  Amazing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, funny, amazing... and terrible. Obrigado.
 * Delete for now, although this is still a current event and I'd recommend waiting to let the dust settle first. AutomaticStrikeout 20:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Are we living in a world in which a campus shooting is not WP:N?Casprings (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Given this was not a campus shooting, your question is irrelevant. Resolute 22:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with AutomaticStrikeout that this is still a current event and a judgment on notability should be made once the proverbial dust settles. I will say, however, that it is presumptive to call this is a "campus shooting" when, according to the news reports I've read, it occurred near the campus, there is so far no indication that the perpetrator or any of the victims was affiliated with the university at the time, there is no indication that the motive was connected with the university, and the university police department is not currently involved in the investigation . In that vein, the title of this article is misleading, but that's subject to change based on how the investigation unfolds. All that being said, I do agree that it's a sad state of affairs that there is such a thing as a "normal" shooting. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Withdrew most of this comment; although Casprings has not withdrawn his/her above characterization of this event as a "campus shooting", his/her moving of the article indicates that s/he no longer believes this to be the case. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm sure a flood of keep !votes will eventually come in to save this article, but honestly, it looks like little more than a crazy guy who shot a cop trying to do their job, then shot at anyone else nearby. Tragic, yes, but this is merely a news story of negligible historical significance. It is only getting the news coverage it is due to proximity of a major university, but the university had nothing to do with the incident. Resolute 22:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it says really terrible things about our society where people are regarding mass shootings as commonplace. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They aren't common place, but this isn't exactly a "mass shooting" either. The title of the article is misleading as the shooting didn't happen on the campus of Texas A&M, it didn't involve university personnel nor did it involve a university student. It was merely in the same city as the university. On that basis, if kept, it needs to moved to a different title that isn't misleading. (I've requested that). However, this is much like the situation with incidents that involve aircraft. We don't have articles on every plane accident that doesn't result in certain criteria. As an analogy though, a shooting usually has a fatality, but unless there's also some permanent, enduring change that results from the incident, the event isn't historically notable. This story is falling on the coattails of Aurora and the temple, so unless something changes, I don't expect it to hang around in the national news past the next few days.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Past experience shows that stories that receive sufficiently prominent national news coverage, like this one, don't just quickly disappear. Also, in conjunction with the recent Colorado and Wisconsin shootings, this one is likely to be a part of the gun control/gun rights debate in the context of the upcoming U.S. presidential elections. Nsk92 (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If so, then it should be listed as part of the content of an article on the campaign or gun control.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We can do that and still keep the article.--Chaser (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind though, Nsk92, that nobody here can predict the future with certainty. I don't necessarily doubt your predicted scenario will come to fruition, but we still ought to wait and see how this story will develop over time before we come to a lasting conclusion on the fate of this article. Kurtis (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete note it wasn't inside Texas A&M or in the vicinity, the shooting happened in a residential area a two blocks south of the campus by someone who was served with an eviction notice and a cop was among those killed. The title is extremely misleading, this fails WP:NOTNEWS, any coverage will die within a day or two just because it didn't happen in the school sad to say. Secret account 00:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article title has been changed Jaranda.--Chaser (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Coverage is now covering the shooter mental health, so this might end up a more significant murder then it seems. The news media usually overexaggerate coverage about murdered police officers, murdered children, shootings involving more than four people getting shot, and missing white women and while it's all tragic, in 99% of the cases it quickly dies off, or has no lasting significance thus we have guidelines like WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS in place. But given the new developments, I think a wait and see approach the only solution here. If media coverage dies down, then it could be renominated for AFD. Keep. Secret account 01:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources cited in the article (all of which were in the article when it was nominated for deletion) clearly, unambiguously, and beyond question are sufficient to satisfy the general notability guideline and no persuasive reason has been presented to disregard it.--Chaser (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for the time being. I'm basing my opinion on WP:RAPID; let's wait a few days and see how things develop. At that point, we should have a much more elucidated perspective on whether this satisfies our notability guidelines for criminal acts. Kurtis (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm extremely skeptical that a shooting that made the front pages of Al Jazeera and BBC News will never receive a followup article anywhere in the world. At a minimum, the followup to this will be covered in Texas papers for years--investigation, "could it have been prevented?", funerals, anniversaries, memorials, etc. In any case, as Chaser points out, even the current level of coverage is sufficient to meet the WP:GNG, and there's no need to rush a deletion nomination per WP:RAPID (especially for a topic that has already generated 52,000 sources). Khazar2 (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Very minor, it would likely never have gotten an article had it been reported the following day, rather than live on the internet. That being said, wikipedia is not paper, and I am quite sure readers will come here looking for this information.  We exist to serve our readers, not to please deletionists.  The only thing worse than creating this article is suggesting it be deleted. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Made top headlines in media outlets such as CNN and Huffington Post. Very noteworthy.  The article can easily be expanded. -- Activism  1234  04:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary...
 * Keep per WP:RAPID:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 04:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Relevant event due to media coverage and in regard to weapon ownership controversy. --Victorvd (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete What we have here is a story inflated and overblown by a media keeping the Denver shooting fresh in its mind. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, cannot give undue prominence to events and is not a regional television station doktorb wordsdeeds 07:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A bloody event at one of the country's America's largest universities during a year that has been plagued with gun violence.  I'd say that's notable. -DodgerOfZion (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The incident didn't occur at the university and so far it appears to be completely  unrelated so I'm not sure what, if any, argument you are making. ElKevbo (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia has articles regarding most shootings with multiple fatalities that receive widespread news coverage such as 2012 Seattle cafe shooting spree. Though policy states that just because one article exists doesn't necessarily imply another should, I think that that's is sufficient precedent for this one. Go Phightins! (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC
 * Then the proper course of action is for us to delete, merge, or otherwise consolidate those other articles. ElKevbo (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Will this shooting be notable in 5 years' time? No. Does it pass WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE? No. MsFionnuala (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a news item, not an encyclopedic  subject. If further details emerge that make this noteworthy  - a further series of events, interesting results such as national debate or legislation,etc. - then this will be worth an article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily meets WP:GNG with the mulitple deaths providing multiple RS coverage.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Northamerica1000's logic. Oldag07 (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As ElKevbo: This is a news item, not an encyclopedic  subject. --Makele-90 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is, sadly, the kind of thing that happens all the time. The only reason it got attention was the other shootings recently. WP:NOTNEWS. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article easily meets the notability requirements for an article. I don't think WP:NOTNEWS applies here, as it's not "routine coverage" of something like a store closing or a football schedule. - SudoGhost 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2012 (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.