Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 UCLA 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 (note: this was closed by  as "keep" as a NAC but this wasn't recorded at the top of this AfD, hence this note - see ). BencherliteTalk 00:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 UCLA shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is completely non-notable, as it's just a run-of-the-mill murder-suicide involving just two people that conveniently occurred on a school campus. The press got a hold of this, thought it might be another mass school shooting, and ran the coverage, but it has since died down now that more details are coming in. The campus has already been declared safe and reopened; there's nothing else to see here that would suggest long-lasting notability. Parsley Man (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Completely agreed with the above here. Page should be deleted. I don't understand why every tiny shooting should have a wikipedia page. Originally it was reported that it was possible that it was multiple gunmen across campus, but that's clearly not what happened. This is completely non-notable. Would highly vote for deletion. 2605:E000:858A:CB00:DCF:B9B9:B0F2:EF2D (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Created the page assuming it would turn out to be something bigger. Turns out it wasn't. Rossbawse (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Guess this teaches you not to rush to create articles for events that just hit the air. Parsley Man (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep for the time being. See talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. I anticipated that the incident may ultimately prove to be non-notable; that's why I started a conversation to that effect on the Talk page (which is where I thought, and still think, it should be at this early hour).  There is, however, no need to rush to delete until more facts are known about the incident, the participants and the reaction (e.g., if UCLA institutes some new policy because of the incident, it could prove to be notable though a merge may also be appropriate).  General Ization   Talk   00:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So far, the incident, participants, and reaction are routine, we haven't had any notable statements made by notable people, and I don't see what kind of new policies UCLA can institute because of the incident aside from making the campus a gun-free zone (which I assume it already is because most schools are). Parsley Man (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with people above. Wikipedia isn't a news wiki site, there is a news portion of wiki that is appropriate. This simply isn't noteworthy enough to have its own entry. Even hours after the even the page is barely even a stub class article. I recommend deletion citing the notability guidelines. Please delete. GoldenSHK (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, or redirect to UCLA, and add a sentence there. we have Category:University shootings in the United States, so not many articles on this topic. the professor is a textbook author, but nothing particularly notable beyond that, so he doesnt appear to be notable by BLP standards. unfortunately, murders and murder/suicides are so common that they dont rise themselves to article status. the best i can see, aside from a UCLA sentence, is if someone created a list of university shootings, based on the category, but i dont see a need for that, either as an alternative to the category, or to document any other less notable shootings. the reason for this being in the news cycle is that we dont normally expect students to kill, we expect universities to be civilized. if only it were more true (mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:B8CF:4C57:18E9:ACDD (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. RA 0808  talkcontribs 02:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable event with major worldwide coverage. At least keep it for now, as more may come out of this event during the ongoing investigation. There was also a very large manhunt, and that should add to the notability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beejsterb (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was not a manhunt, it was a search for possible additional shooters. The shooter was most likely dead when the police responded, according to reports. Parsley Man (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is a global project that should document purely notable events. With due regards to the unfortunate scenario of the accident, this is a very ordinary and run-of-the-mill shooting. The investigations that are happening are similar and so is the subsequent campus search – very ordinary and regular reportage, nothing notable. Xender Lourdes (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into parent article as per delete votes, however the incident is notable enough that it should be kept on Wikipedia and transferred to the parent article. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 06:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Incident already listed at History of the University of California, Los Angeles, however this incident is notable enough that I think it should have a mention on the parent article. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 06:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have merged the article into University of California, Los Angeles; if it is not controversial I think a delete of this article is in store. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 06:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to speedy keep considering how expanded the article is, and how massive the media coverage is now. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 06:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator and WP:NOTNEWS. -- ChamithN   (talk)  09:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 *  Keep or merge - "2016 UCLA shooting" is a quite plausible search term, therefore, the article should either be kept or merged with a redirect and history kept in place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 *  Comment - I propose that if the article cannot be kept, that the term redirect to History of the University of California, Los Angeles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect While this does not support a stand-alone article, the shooting of a professor on campus by a student is a notable event. I am not, however, generally in favor of keeping such thinks on the University's page (unless unusual details made that appropriate). What  I'm looking for is a redirect target, perhaps to a List of gun-related homicides in the United States or List of gun-related deaths in California, or List of gun-related homicides in the California in 2016. Along the lines of List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States by decade   Ideas for a redirect, User:Jax 0677, User:Zigzig20s, User talk:Rossbawse, User:General Ization, User:Optakeover, User:Parsley Man?  Anybody? E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Was the professor a prominent researcher? I wikified him but another editor removed the red link.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As a historical event related to the university, I believe it should be mentioned on the UCLA article. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 14:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is more to the story apparently. He had a "kill list", with another UCLA professor on the list. This AFD seems premature.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The event is more widespread than just the shooter, . It seems likely that additional policies will be put into place, specifically, I think more locations will be able to shelter in place better in the future. McKay (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds like something that can just easily be mentioned in the main UCLA article without any problem. Parsley Man (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to History of UCLA or something. This isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article. -- Veggies ( talk ) 15:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. "Experts say murders of professors on campus are not common, but they do happen." Incidents of violence are common, and the only reason this one got so much coverage was because it happened to be inside a university building. At this point, it seems to be an isolated incident of violence that does not merit WP inclusion. However, the reaction to the incident may eventually merit inclusion at History of the University of California, Los Angeles (depending on how future events occur), so I would !vote for a redirect to that article in the alternative. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 15:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Section break

 * Comment The plot is starting to thicken a bit, with the report (from Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck) that a "kill list" was found at the gunman's Minnesota home and the implication revelation ("Sarkar ...  drove from Minnesota to the Los Angeles area with two handguns, multiple round of ammunition and several magazines in a backpack, according to the LAPD chief.") that he travelled from MN to California to kill the professor and the report that a woman on the list was found dead.  As I earlier suggested, I recommend we give the case some time to develop before we write it off as a "simple" murder-suicide. General Ization   Talk   16:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:RAPID Suggest we suspend this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This: . Changing to Keep.  Even the mere fact of targeting a second professor on a "kill list" persuades me.  This AFD is an object lesson in not rushing to delete breaking news stories.  I move we close this now.  It can be reopened if these stories fail to pan out, but the AFD on a breaking story not only makes Wikipedia look idiotic, it discouraged editors from building the article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's pretty presumptive and doesn't mean much. Parsley Man (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Story is all over the news, WaPo, LATimes, in fact, the problem here was in rushing to AFD. AS WP:RAPID states, "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." This is a textbook example of why WP:RAPID exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:E.M.Gregory that this should be closed for now.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think E.M.'s reminder of WP:RAPID is right on point. General Ization  Talk   16:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and Close per comments by E.M.Gregory et al. and per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Events that are only covered ... immediately after [the] event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult ... to determine shortly after the event occurs... That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." Further "analyis or discussion" of this event would appear to be more likely than not. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 17:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 *  Comment - For now, I recommend allowing this discussion to continue for at least one week after it started, to allow everyone an opportunity to comment on the AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep more than just a one-off murder-suicide. Guy has a kill list, kills someone in Minnesota, drives 2000 miles with guns to kill a professor in his office. More than passing coverage in media, hence meets WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge, per Carlos immediately above and depending on the coverage it gets from now on. Doesn't seem very run-of-the-mill to me. ansh 666 17:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge & redirect – Still in news cycle, notable content, hasty nomination. Baking Soda (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep or Strong merge & redirect - Meets WP:GNG. 174.95.4.78 (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect. I am seeing a lot of claims that this afd is too early, and saying that "there will be more to say, there just isn't yet", and stuff like that. These arguments are contrary to how wikipedia works, we write articles about things that are already existent, and that have already happened, we don't precreate articles in anticipation of content. Yes, this event appears to qualify under GNG, but I don't think it should yet be in it's own article, I think it would fit just fine at History of the University of California, Los Angeles or University of California, Los Angeles for now. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand "the way things work" when it comes to the investigation of and articles about violent crimes. The crime itself has already occurred and received widespread, national (indeed international) coverage, which justified an initial presumption of notability. It is unrealistic to think that all of the aspects of any crime, some of which potentially determine its notability, will be known within the first day or days after the event. I was perhaps the first to suggest (on the article's Talk page) that we keep an open mind concerning its notability, especially when it became clear that it was not a hostage situation or (obvious) domestic terrorism. But the argument that the article was "precreated in anticipation of content" is misguided.  In such cases, we won't know what we don't know until the authorities have a chance to discover it; in the mean time, this is beginning to appear to be much more than just a "run of the mill" murder-suicide, as the original nominator proclaimed it. General Ization   Talk   18:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my word choices were not very good. I can't help but recall the San Bernadino shooting not too long ago, and the activity that followed during it's unfolding on 2015 San Bernardino attack. My core argument is that with events like this, where the investigation is still unfolding and information is being constantly updated and contradicted, I feel that the creation of an article on the subject is a futile and wasteful effort, as the messy process of trying to keep up with every new piece of info from latimes or whatever will necessitate most of the article being copy edited and rewritten. (Not to mention that the style and format of such editing is rife with WP:NOTNEWS vios.) Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The creation of an article on such a prominent event, whether or not it proves to be notable, is neither "futile" nor "wasteful"; one might say it is inevitable. Better that an article be created by experienced and responsible editors, prepared to copy edit, rewrite and cull incorrect and/or poorly referenced information when it appears, than the article be used as a container for all the misinformation that regularly emerges during such events on social media. All in all, I think our collective restraint with regard to this article has been admirable, and the pace of its expansion appropriate. General Ization  Talk   19:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - As the nominator, I am changing my stance to Keep. Goddamn it. Parsley Man (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As the nominator, you also have the prerogative to close the discussion early, if you choose to do so. As others have said, there is nothing to preclude a subsequent nomination if it should prove to be warranted, and this discussion will remain for reference. <font color="#006633">General Ization  Talk   18:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to, though. Parsley Man (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Even the nominator should refrain from closing his own AFD if there are multiple outstanding delete !votes. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that Closing a discussion is not all that difficult, but it is not supposed to be withdrawn by Nom while there are outstanding delete !votes or or closed by any editor who has already rendered an opinion. Any editor who has not yet weighed in is free to close this now.  And probably should.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - No real opinion for deletion or otherwise, but I agree with those above that it should be closed for now per WP:RAPID, and reopened later if it seems to not meet WP:GNG. Gluons12  talk 18:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep. I was going to say delete last night, but decided to sleep on it. In light of new information about this shooting, it appears to be notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia really should do something about people trying to delete every incident that looks like a terrorist attack. There is something more to this when this fellow is targeting not only a former professor but also a former girlfriend, and weapons-up with 2 semiautomatic weapons and drives cross-continent to do it, as if he intended to terrorize a campus, not just settle scores with one professor. Redhanker (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We have no confirmation that he wanted to attack anyone aside from the people in his hit-list, though... Parsley Man (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He did not need to bring two semi-automatic weapons and multiple magazines with him in the car to California, as reliable sources (LAPD Chief Becker) report he did, if he only anticipated shooting two unarmed university professors. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  Talk
 * But he seemed to shoot himself right after he killed Klug. Parsley Man (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We can reasonably infer his intent from the weaponry with which he equipped himself; he was clearly prepared to kill more than two people, though the others he was prepared to kill might have been the law enforcement officers he expected might obstruct his apparent mission. We can infer nothing from the fact he didn't actually use all of his weaponry and instead killed himself, because there are too many possible explanations, the confirmation of any of which is now impossible (we would need to know his thoughts at that moment). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization   Talk   23:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hasty and presumptuous of eventual notability. Kanatonian (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Possible terrorist attack by a Bengali Muslim that is being covered up as workplace violence. Kafir and lovin&#39; it (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC) — Kafir and lovin' it (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It was not workplace violence, and do you have a source for the Bengali Muslim claim? Parsley Man (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The story is indeed being framed as workplace violence and the shooter was, until very recently, repeatedly described as a "white male" even though he was a dark Bengali Muslim. Kafir and lovin&#39; it (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources please, if you don't have any then please stop making possibly BLP-violating claims (IIRC it applies to recently-deceased people). ansh 666 21:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Only...the guy hasn't worked there in years, and even then, it was in an unofficial position as teaching assistant, so the workplace violence angle is very presumptive. The reports have treated it more like a school shooting more than anything. Plus, I have never, EVER seen any descriptions of him being a "white male" in any of the articles I've read, so I don't know where that came from. Parsley Man (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How is it possible for someone to nominate an article for deletion and work on that article and yet not read any of the sources? You're either a liar or unable to read.  Dozens of sources reported the shooter was a white male wearing black until today.  And CBS just reported how the media screwed up on this point.  I don't think you can be trusted with things like facts and evidence, Parsley Man.  It's one thing to make a mistake, it's another to deny out of hand the facts. You cannot be trusted. Kafir and lovin&#39; it (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That nomination was done before the new info (i.e. the dead woman, the kill list, etc.) came up today. And I wasn't able to read those early reports because I use Google's recent news search, which shows the most recent articles by chronological order, for events like this and I use the first results of whatever comes up. Also, you didn't really answer 's question for sources on the Bengali Muslim claim, so I can say the same about you for trustworthiness. Parsley Man (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVILITY: read it. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  Talk   22:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. Extensive media coverage Notability (events). Merge into History of the University of California, Los Angeles if media coverage duration fades.WhereAmI (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now and revisit in 3-4 months. This story certainly has the potential to have legs because of the ongoing national debate in the U.S. about allowing students and faculty to carry guns on college campuses. If there is still continuing coverage (beyond only local press) of this story about 3-4 months from now, we'll know that the article deserves to be kept for good. If  non-local coverage will have essentially disappeared by then, it will be time to delete this article. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt that with killings in 2 states this will fade, University angle tends ot keep these things alive. note that the 2006 San Diego State University shooting has attracted ongoing interest.sources.


 * WP:SNOWBALL. We all have better things to do.  (not sure if I should x out my previous !vote after throwing a SNOWBALL.)  E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Coverage is national, not local, so the nominator's characterization of non-notable, as it's just a run-of-the-mill murder-suicide involving just two people is inaccurate. The coverage received is not consistent with WP:109PAPERS that would merit deletion. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not trying to cite many WPs here, based on my common sense as a person who has gone through the Ph.D. process in a U.S. school, I think this event will open up the discussion about the terrible work atmosphere in engineering graduate schools in U.S.. It will pass the test of time as an important event. Taha (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. This is a valuable perspective that many of us cannot speak to; I'm glad you did. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  Talk   14:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep since it is a very notable article in the immediate future and if it turns out to not be notable over a larger period of time, say in a coupel months, then it can be deleted. Until now it is generating a lot of attention. AustinBrister (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: per WP:NTEMP notability is not temporary. If it is notable today, it is notable for eternity. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a arbitrary section break above to delineate the point at which new information emerged about this case that (I perceive) turned the tide of responses from a general consensus of Delete to Keep, in order to allow a potential closer to better assess the current consensus.  <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization   Talk   15:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I see many editors condemning User:Parsley Man's nomination as a rush to judgment. Assuming arguendo that notability was established once more details about the incident were revealed, there is still nothing objectionable about the nomination. At the time the nom was made, it was reasonable to have a good-faith belief, based on current news coverage, that this was a flash-in-the-pan murder-suicide. Even if the article had been deleted, it could have been easily recreated once notability is established. Additionally, I must oppose the position that this discussion should be speedily closed. Once more information came out, many editors reassessed their positions on the issue. This would not have been possible if the discussion had been prematurely closed, as has been suggested by some above. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 19:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There are plenty of Wikipedia articles for individual murders. D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per General Ization and Dervorguilla. I think the developments of the "kill list" and alleged additional murder absolutely imply "further analysis or discussion," and media coverage was indeed extensive. It makes little sense to delete the article now, only to resurrect it once/if further revelations transpire and are reported. GABgab 23:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a notable event. Per 's comment, notability is not temporary and therefore all the WP:NOTNEWS delete rationales aren't that valid here. <font face="Papyrus"> Anarchyte <font color="#000"> ( work  &#124;  talk )   04:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 19:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's the kind of topic that merits coverage on Wikipedia and is too big to fit into another article (would you want to put all or most of this information into the UCLA main article?), so I think this sad stupid horrible event merits its own article, sadly. Blythwood (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The notable thing about this event is that because people thought it was a school shooting, the police response involved hundreds of special forces officers. It's not necessarily the murder that is noteworthy but the response. This is evidence of the growing normalization of school shootings in the US. User:Rileyfricke (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: It stands as a far more significant event in the history of Los Angeles and UCLA than the UCLA Taser incident, which survived its own deletion discussion 10 years ago. Group29 (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG. Covered nationally US and internationally in multiple countries. Covered extensively by radio, TV, and newspapers. Note that hatted individual's vote was Keep and may have been unfairly silenced beyond the uncivil conduct. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The basis cited by the editor who provided the collapsed !vote itself contained a WP:BLP violation, since it made an assertion about the perpetrator's religion that was not (and still is not) supported by reliable sources. That, combined with the uncivil commentary and the fact that the editor has been blocked indef, made the editor's comments less than credible and their !vote dispensable. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization   Talk   12:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Move for closure. The AfD has now been open for seven days, and all but one respondents since new information emerged on 2 June have called for the article to be kept, including the original nominator.  WP:SNOWBALL. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization   Talk   12:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I second this. Personally, this has been up for far too long already. Parsley Man (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets GNG. clear and simple. NOTNEWS does not apply to a story that has reached international attention.BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2016 (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.