Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Hialeah 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) 17:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

2013 Hialeah shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT Transcendence (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails the Wikipedia is not a newspaper policy and WP:EVENT guideline, there is no indication that this tragic event will be a "precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance"; there does not appear to be any significant coverage outside of the US on this what little there is is unlikely to continue outside the current news cycle. This is what Wikinews is for.  LGA talk  edits   06:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I find it a bit strange how anybody would even think it shouldn't have its own article. It has attention from CNN, Daily Mail, and BBC. If Clackamas Town Center shooting, 2009 Portland nightclub shooting, 2013 Santa Cruz shooting, and 2012 Azana Spa shootings have their own articles, why can't this? All of the shooting attacks I just listed only had 2-3 innocent fatalities, while this one had 6. Also, I'm sure the vast majority of people in the US, let alone the world, have never even heard about any of the shootings I just listed, yet they all have those articles. The Hialeah shooting is the deadliest in the US in months, and the deadliest to have ever happened in Hialeah. Cyanidethistles (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not mean this should; I think that your comment that "[this] shooting is the deadliest in the US in months" adds weight to why this should be in wikinews and not here; if you could say that it was the deadliest in ten or twenty years that would go some way to showing that this was an unusual event and of lasting significance but the fact that you have to go back only a few months to find a similar event only goes to highlight the routine nature of such events.  LGA talk  edits   08:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose that is true. However, as I said, many articles about shootings with 1-3 fatalities exist. There are even articles about shootings that never killed anyone: Heritage High School shooting, Tacoma mall shooting. If this should go, then those other shootings with a small number of fatalities should be nominated for deletion too. It would only be fair. This shooting is one of the deadliest to have ever occurred in South Florida, so it is indeed a notable event for people who live there. Cyanidethistles (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes they should but that's why we generally don't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument in deletion discussions, unless we have prior precedent in previous AFDs that these should be kept (which as best I can tell, hasn't happened.) --M ASEM (t) 15:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  if you could say that it was the deadliest in ten or twenty years that would go some way to showing that this was an unusual event and of lasting significance but the fact that you have to go back only a few months to find a similar event only goes to highlight the routine nature of such events. Just thought I mention that you have to go back 31 years to have a deadlier shooting in the entire Miami area (8th largest in the U.S.) Soulbust (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep This article is of some significance. Moreover, this shooting caused the loss of seven lives. Enough coverage to establish WP:GNG. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 10:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:EVENT supercedes WP:GNG Transcendence (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically no - EVENT clarifies the GNG for events focusing on the type of sourcing that is needed. In line with the GNG we need significant secondary sourcing, which is not provided by simple news reports that this story presently has, but by analysis and impact on the larger world. Still, even in light of the GNG this article fails that due to mostly primary newspaper reports. --M ASEM (t) 15:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Nobody has explained how this event could have lasting significance beyond Hialeah. It's tragic, but not very unusual. There has been little international coverage and it doesn't seem to have had any political impact. For what it's worth, I'm not sure why 2012 Azana Spa shootings has an article either, but that's for another day. A merge might be possible, if someone has suggestions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This incident is also at AfD at Articles for deletion/Miami hostage standoff. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have redirected that title to this one since the article there was inferior. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete a duplicate article about a common crime of no encyclopedic significance. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject received considerable national and international attention. NOTNEWS is intended to prevent the coverage of minor local stories, not big international stories.  (Yes, international coverage does not automatically qualify anything, but it is one of the indicators that something is likely to be notable.)  The death toll pretty much guarantees this story will continue to be covered for some time, thus satisfying the otehr main indicator of notability (longevity of coverage). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is NOTNEWS, this is not encyclopaedic its a news event. Created largely for ITN as are most of the other such articles mentioned. And even though OSE is a guideline not to use in such discussions, I would support the deletion of most of those shootings/bus carhses/tanker explosions/bomb attacks. Some are notable like Giffords or other large bomb attacks with repercussions, but most are just stubs created in the heat of th emoment and then forgotten forever. Neither are such one-time incidents notable enough to be on full fledges pages of the city, etc which dates back to ancient history and not 23 April 2022 or whathaveyouLihaas (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Press coverage (see list of references) is sufficient to justify notability of the incident. My very best wishes (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with all the reasons above for a keep. I would like to also add that this is the worst mass shooting in the entire Miami area in three decades (it is referenced in the article). Soulbust (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's recentism. Three decades in the history of Miami? Its not like there aren't regular shootings either. Hardly stands above and beyong, unlike olumbine to its history and profile.Lihaas (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't a paper encyclopedia - our standard is not "worst ever" (i.e equivalent to Columbine). Once in 30 years is way rare enough for something to be unusual by our standard.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On what premise?Lihaas (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are asking, but if you mean what makes this shooting notable the answer is the same as any other article of any kind - coverage in reliable sources (about and beyond that which can airly be describes as "routine"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:EVENT gives examples of what makes an event notable, first of all it lists "Lasting effect", so what is this events lasting effect ? answer as far as the article goes nothing. Secondly it lists "Geographical scope", this event effected only a tiny region. Also we need to look at the "Depth of coverage" nothing comes close to the sort of In-depth coverage you would expect from a notable event, it is all WP:PRIMARYNEWS reporting.  LGA talk  edits   23:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a bit soon to cry "No lasting effect" just ten days after the event? As WP:LASTING states: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. (Thusz (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC))


 * Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As an admin, you should know that sources do not, in and of themselves, grant notability. Could you elaborate on your reasoning? FYI, you just copied and pasted the same thing on two other AfDs. Transcendence (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am also wondering, do you find these to lack notability? Frankstown Township shooting, Cupertino quarry shooting, and 2010 Las Vegas courthouse shooting have their own articles, but none of them seem to be well known at all. If this Hialeah shooting page should be removed, then those should be as well, because they aren't notable in any way. I have relatives that live near where the Cupertino quarry shooting happened, and they seem to hardly remember that event ever happening, as probably with most people who live in that area. Cyanidethistles (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, yes. Transcendence (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep the suggested requirement of "analysis and impact for the larger world" in an unrealistically high bar, amounting essentially to "famous". The not news requirement is meant to prevent the coverage of most single murders and similar events. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 8 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.