Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Spring, Texas 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. Concerns about WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:BLPCRIME are well taken, but there is no consensus that this topic is non-notable and these issues can be worked out on the article and the talk page. Nothing said here today prevents a merge at some point and the project should revisit this issue in a year or two to see whether it's still discussed. One other thing: this was an awful discussion to read. I hope in the future everyone can take a deep breath and tone down their language. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 Spring, Texas shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT in that altho this is horrid disgusting etc, it is nothing more than an extreme case of domestic violence and now that the initial couple of news cycles have ended, we are not hearing much more about it outside of the immediate area it occured (Houston). Terrible event, but other than lots of pain for the families and a probable execution of the perp (it is Texas), nothing much more is going to come from this. John from Idegon (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep Wrong. This is the second largest mass shooting to take place in the US this year, it has plenty of significance. I believe me and another editor went over the articles importance all ready on the talk page, and when John didn't agree he thru a hissy fit and nominated it for deletion. If you're going to delete this, than delete every single article about a mass shooting that has occured in the US that haven't had "major lasting importance", or even delete every article ever on mass shootings in other countries for the same reason. There's literally 100s of them. As a matter of fact, delete every single article on Wikipedia ever written about an event that may or may not have lasting cultural significance. That would only get rid of at least half the articles on the site alone. This shooting, however, was significant. It might not be in 10 years, but it's worth remembranc, just like any event where many lives are taken should be. Secondly, if we shouldn't be reporting on current events, then let's delete that whole page on the plane crash in the Ukraine, or how about just everything going on in Ukraine in general? This hasn't even been a current event for a week and now suddenly it being a "current event" is an issue. If these are the "standards" you all follow, then you're not following your own standards at all. Benbuff01 02:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Comment, you are not helping your case by attacking other editors or by misstating facts. Having edits or even whole articles reverted is just a part of how things get done on Wikipedia, and you need to stop taking it personally. I just counted thru the discussion on the articles talk page, and there were 5 separate editors speaking about deleting the whole article, and only you, who is article's creator and an IP speaking for keeping it. So your above statement is patently false. Incidentally, one thing that might be in order if you want to keep this article in the encyclopedia would be to actually indicate so here by prefacing your first comment with "Keep", as I have prefaced this one with "comment". John from Idegon (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * as you point out, shootings and mass shootings are a dime a dozen in the US and there is no indication this has any more legs for any long lasting impact or notice than dozens of other bloody fests that scream their gory headlines and are forgotten as the next batch of corpses are wheeled out. that other prurient bloodfest articles should be deleted is not a valid reason to keep this one.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  07:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? That's a perfectly valid reason. If there's no reason those shouldn't be deleted, than this one shouldn't be deleted either. Not my fault you're a lazy hypocrit. This nomination is a joke. We've had discussions twice on the talk page whether or not it should be deleted and both times most people ruled it was fine. Benbuff01 03:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Read again, I was not the only one, as a user specifically replied to you today also about reasons for keeping it. There were others as well, including one that replied to Magnolia as well. So, as a matter of fact, your statement is patently false. It's funny how you and the above user apparently only adhere to standards when it's convenient enough for you both. And that's just an observation, not a personal attack. I have said it before and I will say it again: This article is about an event that is worth remembering, and did affect a community. If this article isn't worth keeping but there's so many others that exactly the same as this that are not up for deletion? I'm just saying you gentlemen clearly don't keep to your own standards. It's ridiculous that this is even up for debate. Benbuff01 04:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The personal attack was referring to TRPoD as a "hypocrit" (sic). And you are welcome to nominate any and all articles about mass shootings for deletion.  As a matter of fact you are welcome to nominate any article you choose for deletion.  Just make sure you can cite a valid reason as I did here. As far as the talk page goes,  stated under a heading "Speedy deletion" that after he cleared all the BLP violation from the article there was nothing left.  It is fair to assume that is a delete.  states, "I personally do not believe this event merits an article at this point in time." 2 deletes. commenting on the RfC question,  says, "This shouldn't even be an article, but meh". That makes 3 deletes. You chime in after that wanting to keep it.  that makes 3 deletes, 1 keep. Following that, the IP editor that I mentioned above that you chose to ignore also expressed a good faith argument to keep. that makes it 3-2. I then made my statement expressing a desire to see this article deleted. 4-2.  Following that, TRPoD stated his opinion that the article should go.  That makes 5 editors for deletion and you and an IP for keeping, which is exactly what I said above.  Again, you are not helping your case by misstating facts and calling other editors names or insinuating they are lying. John from Idegon (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Except I'm not the only person who wanted to keep the page. An editor replied to YOUR post that the page was worth keeping as well. And another editor also stated the page was fine with keeping because it was well written and cited. I'm not lying about anything, I'm just reading what's there. You should try doing the same. And Malerooster's claim wasn't in favor of deletion. He clearly didn't care. Don't twist words around to be completely in your favor. I will say it again: There is no reason whatsoever for this article to be deleted, other than that you, Magnolia, and the above user have no idea how to follow your own "guidelines". I've all ready stated my case, which is much more solid than yours. This was a major news story for several days, talked about by just about every major news network in the country, and is going to end up being one of the biggest stories of the year. I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the news, but unfortunately, it is. It's our job to document important events, and this one was important: One of the biggest crimes of the year, one of the biggest mass murders of the year. Am I willing to edit down some of the information on this story: absolutely. But to say it doesn't deserve it's own page is ridiculous. You have no case. Period. Benbuff01 13:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment I came looking this morning to see if Wikipedia had an article on this event, which I have been following with interest. (If that's the right word for such a tragedy.) I admit to being a bit surprised and dismayed to find that the article has been proposed for deletion. For whatever that's worth. Yes, I realize Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Yaush (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Please consider that there is a reason for Wikinews which is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and is tailored toward breaking news. This article, and others like it, may be more appropriate there, and then as the situation unfolds, and gains some historical, encyclopedic value, an article could be created here on Wikipedia. Bobsd (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep - "Nothing more than extreme domestic violence"??? If this event weren't so tragic, that comment would be laughable. I would say that a husband beating his wife to a pulp and breaking about 10 bones is "extreme domestic violence" that may not deserve a Wikipedia article. This is far more than domestic violence; it is mass murder. "Nothing much more is going to come from this": One of the few advantages of Wikipedia over other encyclopedias is that the number of articles is limitless (and no, I'm not suggesting that everything deserves an article). Wikipedia's standards for notability do not include whether an event will "create some sort of lasting change in society". If we apply that standard, about 75% of articles on the English Wikipedia should be deleted (for example Ali Lohan). But let's start with other mass killings. Look at the hundreds of entries with articles at List of rampage killers and all the links to other lists on that page. I think it's safe to say that at least half of those are no more important or have had no more impact that the Spring killings. The arguments for deletion of this article are deletionism taken to its absurd extreme. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete - A large part of the article is a discussion about the person still accused of the crime, in violation of WP:BLPCRIME. As well, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there is extensive unencyclopedic detail about "what happened next"; a car chase, spike strips on the road, and so forth. The important facts about this terrible crime have already been added to the history section of the Spring, Texas article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep - A large, extensive amount of media coverage, especially the special focus on the sole survivor of the shooting, indicates enough notability for this to have an article. Also, if this article is marked for deletion, then it honestly wouldn't make sense if the 2013 Santa Monica shooting, 2013 Hialeah shooting, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting, Clackamas Town Center shooting, Southern California Edison shooting, etc., etc. articles aren't. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * that we have WP:OTHERCRAP that we shouldnt is a very poor rationale. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Geez, now we have to hear the obligatory "other crap" argument that inevitably is summoned from the vast, arcane storehouse of wikirules when someone disagrees with keeping an article. If it was an article that you wanted to keep, everyone else would be invoking "other crap" and you would be defending the article. "Other crap" that makes up about 75% of the English Wikipedia and at least half of articles on mass murder? Sorry, you couldn't be more wrong. Your calling it crap doesn't make it crap. Now, since WP:OTHERCRAP is an essay, and policy trumps essays, would someone like to bring up a policy that might mitigate a mere essay? How about WP:CON since that's what's going on in this very place? Or maybe WP:IAR? Or WP:BURO? Anyone? Anyone? 75.177.156.78 (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And the continuing media coverage isn't? We still have very recent news articles that are covering the funerals of the victims. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * it seems the obligatory "othercrap" is necessary when all the supporters of the article can muster for their rationale is a rationale that has been explicitly identified as NOT being a valid rationale. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ...Seriously, what? Libertarian12111971 (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Libertarian. Huh?? 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep - There are numerous shootings where only 3 or 4 victims are murdered (and media coverage is similar) which have article pages on WP. Fuutil (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, much coverage in reliable sources covering the event, the ongoing prosecution, and the repercussions. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 02:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

CommentSo that's 5 keeps versus 2 deletes, and 2 comments mostly in favor of keeping the article. This has been up for 3 days now, I think it's obvious it should be kept. Benbuff91 13:42 20 July 2014
 * Excuse me, as much as I think this article is notable enough to be kept, I don't think you should be rubbing it in the faces of those who want it gone. I've seen debates like this that have lasted longer than this. Also, the fact that you're the one who created this article in the first place makes your case on this worse. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Libertarian. An uninvolved party, preferably an admin, should decide on the consensus and close. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not rubbing it anyone's face or making any kind of decision. Benbuff91 21:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's true, your post was entirely pointless. No one needs a running tally of "votes", a statement of how long the AfD has been posted, or what you consider "obvious" about the consensus. You're not helping the case to keep the article by making such posts. Unless you have something new to add to the discussion, don't add anything. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I honestly do not believe you. Please don't make me reconsider my decision, based on your opinion alone. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine don't believe me, it's not like you can understand people's tones through text. I apologize for my comment, I merely jumped the gun, not my intention to brag. I merely wanted to move this along. I am new to this, never dealt with article deletions before, so normally I'm not aware of how long something like this should take. This is my last post on this until a decision is made. Benbuff91 15:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Came here myself to check and see if there was an article on this also. I'm in a criminal justice class and was doing a paper on mass shootings and was interested in using this as an example. I think it's an event worth having an article about, but I'm not voting yes or no, just putting in my input. Even among mass shootings it is fairly unique and noteworthy, and definitely one of the biggest of this year. OlafOneEye (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 9

Comment Has there been a judgment about whether this article should be deleted or not yet? I think this has gone on long enough. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You might get an admin's eyes on the AfD by posting at WP:AN, although I think a week or so is not an unusual amount of time, especially with just 8 or 9 commenters. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * AfD's go for a week at least unless they meet the criteria for snow close, which this doesn't. It's only been 5 days. John from Idegon (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, gotcha. Sorry, this is my first AfD; I've obviously got no clue how long this actually must go. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would behoove you and some others to do what the box at the top of this edit page suggests and actually read WP:DISCUSSAFD. This discussion would quite probably been much less contentious. John from Idegon (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your point is a good one, John, but your tone serves no purpose and doesn't make the discussion any less "contentious", nor does it help your arguments for deletion no matter how good they are. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2014 (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.