Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Webster, New York 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure)  Jay Jay What did I do? 20:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 Webster, New York shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

(contested PROD, objecting to an unwise opening to reason, but not adressing the point, which was...)Non- notable crime TheLongTone (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - It depends how we define non-notable. The circumstances of the crime (the shooting of two firemen on active service) are rare so in that sense it meets WP:GNG and WP:N/CA, but shootings themselves, particularly those involving one or two individuals, are sadly a more regular occurrence, so in that respect it isn't so unusual. On the other hand this received international coverage, with the BBC News Channel running it as a lead story. I would say though it is quite early to have this article since the events it concerns only happened yesterday and there's possibly information that's yet to be released to the media. I recently wrote an essay in which I tried to set out some guidelines on when articles about criminal acts should appear on Wikipedia. Under those it would have been preferable to wait a while before creating this, but they're by no means policy. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Its too soon to tell whether this event will prove to be of lasting significance. Sensible essay, btw.TheLongTone (talk)
 * Thanks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment although there has been substantial news coverage (both national and international), I think it is too soon to see what long-term effects this event will have. I don't have a crystal ball, I would say this event will be notable have enough news coverage to be kept. --   LuK3      (Talk)   12:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dreadful tragedy but this is more suited for Wikinews. While it is much too soon to tell if this should be covered in more detail on Wikipedia, I suspect that, if this event were notable on the level of, for example, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, it would have in all likelihood attracted enough attention to be bigger than it is at the moment. There is no evidence of extensive coverage beyond reporting of the initial incident and there is currently only one source on the page. The number of casualties is not shockingly large either. It appears to have broken no records or to have been especially unusual in any way. In short, it appears fairly routine and I doubt an encyclopedia of this nature would have a detailed analysis of every attack on firefighting personnel or ambulance personnel or anything similar. --86.40.201.132 (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While a spa tag may not be derogatory according to wikipedia guideline, I see no reason for it in this case, since the post is cogent, civil and is the only contribution this IP has posted: it is not as though they are spamming this discussion with an outre POV. Everybody has a right to an opinion.TheLongTone (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again. It is insulting. Perhaps the aggressor might like to read this. Today I have contributed to other discussions and my contributions involve topics such as a South American stratovolcano to a Kazakh plane crash. I couldn't care less about this bloody shooting, keep it for all I care. When does a person graduate beyond a "SPA" anyway? --86.40.201.132 (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep The circumstances of this crime are rare indeed--indeed, according to a story in the local newspaper firemen don't train for these circumstances, and it's something that isn't tracked at any level. But I'd like to see this article get fleshed out more before going to a full keep. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 15:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Change to full keep per international coverage. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 15:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Can we not rush to delete current events, especialy shootings like this. There is alot of information we still do not know can we wait atleast.  Jay Jay Talk to me 20:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable crime. Worldwide international coverage. BBC published the further analytics with killing notes. NickSt (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There have been a series of shootings this year, and eventually these can all be merged into a single article, "2012 Shootings" or something. 76.121.143.28 (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I will first have to say I don't count as a completely neutral observer as I grew up in Webster - tho' I moved away forty years ago or near... But I don't think much harm would be done leaving it up for a short while, in case enough material is collected that could be of use to be merged into a more general article on the recent shooting incidents in the US. JoanR (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Shootings in the US in 2012 would be a depressingly long article, I think. Imo this crime would become notable if it helped to limit the availability of weapons of mass slaughter in the US, but holding my breath I am not.TheLongTone (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable based on sources. Everyking (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, but too early too tell. The event has garnered widespread international attention (in Russia, India, UK, China, Canada, Australia), which is part of the criteria for notability. But whether it has a lasting effect might be too early to tell.VR talk  10:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep : international coverage. Mightymights (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It has been covered nationally by CNN, USA Today, ABC News, etc. and therefore meets the GNG. The only exceptions to the GNG are those that are WP:what Wikipedia is not; this could be considered a borderline WP:NOT violation, although I personally think it is too early to determine if this event has the "enduring notability" that that policy talks about. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the sources are chronologically independent; we need solid coverage from books or journals, or from news sources that don't report this as news.  Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Decent coverage internationally, and agree with RedSoxFan that this nomination is too early to discuss "enduring notability" Canuck 89 (chat with me)  23:30, December 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems like an obviously notable event to me.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 04:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The expansive coverage, both in number of articles and where they articles are published, shows that this is clearly the sort of notable event that we cover at wp.  Not even close.  This should be SNOWed, to remove the unfortunate tag at the top of the article, and not sully the article any longer.  Not even close at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 29 December 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.