Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Interstate 75 rock-throwing deaths


 * 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

2017 Interstate 75 rock-throwing deaths

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is about two entirely non-notable local crimes with no lasting impact beyond the brief news cycle when the crime occurred. Jayron 32 13:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment (from Article author) Reminding User:Jayron32 that it is courteous to notify article creator of deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The title is WP:SYN, implying there is a connection between the two events where there is none. The topic also isnt notable enough for this to be a list article..--Pontificalibus 20:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – Would be fine on WikiNews but not here. Dawnseeker2000  23:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment we should also consider whether 1999 Interstate 75 rock-throwing death is really more notable, or should be redirected to e.g. Stone_throwing.--Pontificalibus 12:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was testing the waters with this nomination. That one is up next.  -- Jayron 32 14:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the well-attended discussion 1999 Articles for deletion/Interstate 75 rock-throwing death closed as unanimous KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do note that consensus can change on previous outcomes. – The Grid  ( talk )  00:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep A pair of 2017 rock throwing incidents in which people in cars on Interstate 75 by hooligans amusing themselves by dropping heavy objects (rocks in one case, a sandbag in the other) from overpasses onto moving vehicles. Incidents and trial received national coverage.  State of Ohio responded with a new regulation that requires fencing on highway overpasses.  Meets WP:NCRIME although article needs improvement.
 * Editors above object to placing the two incidents, both on the Interstate 75, both in 2017, on the same page. Note that  multiple, national news media make this connection.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's probably best to avoid assuming bad faith on editors who are not in favor of keeping the article. – The Grid  ( talk )  00:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:HEYMANN article and sourcing expanded to make the national coverage of these crimes easier for editors to see.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete—no significance to either event, and no connection to either even warranting the merger of them into a single article.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that Ohio has a new regulation and is installing fences on highway overpasses because of the WP:LASTING EFFECT of this crime, and do note that the coverage of the crime's WP:EFFECT cites the Michigan and Ohio rock throwing deaths as a sort of one-two punch that persuaded the Ohio highway department to install fencing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming ad arguendo that such a regulation is significant, it wouldn't apply to the Michigan case. If ODOT were persuaded by the Michigan case, then a brief mention of "a similar case in Michigan" would be all that is warranted by way of explanation, not a full exposition of the Michigan case. That all said, I'm not persuaded of a lasting effect because highway overpasses are regularly fenced off in many places; I drive under two daily that have had fences for decades.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Procedural relist per request by E.M.Gregory.
 * Note to the closing editor. Because page creator was not notified, because article was not listed on relevant notice boards until today, and becauee of today's WP:HEYMANN upgrades, I am requesting that this discussion be allowed to run for another week.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not reviewing condition of article at time of nomination, but it is certainly substantial, well-supported, valid now. --Doncram (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NCRIME. We certainly don't cover all crimes. As far as the lasting effect, highway overpasses have been routinely fenced in many places for a very long time. I don't find the fact that Ohio passed a regulation about this to be significant. MB 18:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep meets current regulations for keeping articles about events like this. Per sources like, the subject pass WP:LASTING. Lorstaking (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What would be the lasting effect here? The installing fences on highway overpasses seems to be a case-by-case basis as for some states it's already a standard (questioning if it's not already a federal standard as Interstate 75 would be under the state's DOT control). Maybe if we can source the bill that calls for the specific legislation then it would be highly recommended to note. – The Grid  ( talk )  13:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Supply source requested by User:TheGrid CBS News: Ohio to require overpass fencing after sandbag causes deadly crash.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Better to link to Associated Press as it's originally from them –  The Grid  ( talk )  13:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per comments of nomination, Imzadi1979, and MB. I wish I didn't want to comment on it by is bringing up unrelated matters on this. The discussion about the 1999 incident in Florida is fair to note here as it applies but assuming bad faith is not constructive here. These are news articles. They aren't significant to note on the article about the entire Interstate 75 roadway segment as it spans from Michigan to Florida. It's still even iffy to note them on the respective Interstate 75 in Michigan and Interstate 75 in Ohio articles as these articles are about the roadway's formation history. There needs to be comprehension on understanding the guidelines set forward on their respective WikiProject and MOS. –  The Grid  ( talk )  18:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do note that it was Users Pontificalibus and Jayron25 who introduced the 1999 Interstate 75 rock-throwing death and that it was not I, but WP:RS multiple news media (some in article) that connected these two deaths-by-youths-throwing-rocks. The incidents were connected in news coverage of both incidents (which took place on the same interstate highway in two neighboring states)  and connected again in relationship to the initiative by the Ohio highway department to fence the highway overpasses to prevent future deaths and injuries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:NCRIME. Per good sourcing. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are Delete comments on this AfD with no supporting policy/fact rationale other than IDON'TLIKEIT arguements.  A few months ago, an AfD voted  to keep the sister-article "1999 Interstate 75 rock-throwing death" with a debate on notability and WP policy regarding single events.  I think the consensus of that discussion regarding policy for such events applies here.  This is a well structured and referenced article.  There is plenty of good-quality significant RS on this event. Some of the discussion above feels like a "hanging jury", which I am sure is not the intention; but to dismiss the result of the recent AfD of the 1999 article without demonstrating why the logic of that AfD was wrong (e.g. "That one is up next"), does not seem right. This AfD doesn't even specifically state what WP policy it believes this article is specifically in conflict with. That is not how things should work in AfD on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NEVENT, item #4: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." (bold mine).  The contention is that this lacked any lasting significance beyond the news cycle when it occurred.  It's fine that you would disagree and be willing to provide evidence that it did have a lasting impact, but to demand that there was no support for deleting it is just silly.  How does one prove the non-existence of things?  Per WP:BURDEN, it is the burden of those wishing to keep an article that sources support that the article meets the minimum requirements.  If they do, I would be willing to accept that, but the argument that one must prove that the sources don't exist is impossible.  You can't prove a negative like that.  If the sources do exist, kindly provide them.  -- Jayron 32 16:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.