Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Plano 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. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Plano shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a newspaper red dogsix (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

2607:FEA8:A29F:FABD:E593:6947:B87C:63F8 (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Mass shootings are an all too common event these days. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable given the large number of victims Rossbawse (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Due to Irma, it wasn't covered in the news channels. Likely only known locally. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep, it has references that establish notability. Local notability is still notability. 2601:140:2:894C:1BC6:B9F:A1C6:C6B9 (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Also shootings are common these days.
 * Keep- This is one of the biggest mass shootings so far this year. The article just needs work. It is a notable event. bencub9119:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbuff91 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - "One of the biggest mass shootings so far this year"; according to who? The same story is repeated in 109 papers for a few days but Wikipedia is not news. What would make an incident notable, according to WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE, is historical or long-term impact. That can only be determined weeks or months from now hence we have a rushed article on our hands. Until more significant coverage appears, this crime has no claim for inclusion in the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Local news coverage alone will make it notable. 9 deaths is pretty significant, and news coverage of this will continue for some time. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Continuing major coverage of this 9 fatality event. There is no snowball's chance this won't be notable - even without the obligatory WP:RAPID mention.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: My feeling is that Hurricane Irma, and the fact the news was first released around midngiht, resulted in fewer initial news stories. But that is change. Also, there will countless be follow ups as the investigation continues. There will be news about the survivor. Backgrounds on the victims, and perpetrator. There will be discussion from the domestic violence angle. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can confirm that this received decent level of coverage here in the UK so not purelay a "local" event. Also judging it based on lack of news coverage because something else was going on is flawed anyway so any vote stating it isn't notable enough because of Irma should be discounted.145.8.180.203 (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep An editor above who asserts that initial coverage was drowned out by the hurricane news was probably correct. But national  Plano mass shooting: Details revealed about gunman Spencer Hight CBS News,  and international Texas gunman killed his estranged wife and seven friends, BBC:, coverage continues and regional coverage is intense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This mass shooting is operationally identical to politically motivated terrorist attacks in Israel and other nations. The only difference is that the target was the shooter's ex-wife and there was no stated political motive or pledge of allegience to a terrorist group. In my opinion, such attacks should have the same coverage as politically motivated attacks, and indeed we cannot be sure of any clandestine motives hidden by what appears to be domestic violence. Violence against a wife does not explain mass shooting everyone in a home, school or shopping center unless his primary motive was to create terror by mass killing using his ex-wife to mask his real motive. Editors need to be watchful of coordinated attempts to keep such events out of media such as wikipedia which are excellent resources for studying terrorist and terrorist-like attacks. Terrorist attacks and mass shootings should never be deleted because they are "routine" news like car accidents, and guidelines should be revised so people stop routinely swarming to delete anything that looks like a WP:OBVIOUS-TERRORIST-ATTACK. Many of the editors above have also been busy trying to delete or list-ify Islamist ISIS inspired terrorist attacks Bachcell (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mass killing = incident of historical significance and lasting impact. Carrite (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - at this point it is no big deal. Shootings happen all the time, and this wasn't in a public place like a school or a theater.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Domestic violence with multiple victims, in one house. Not notable. This event happens multiple times a year. Nothing about this particular event makes it any more notable than various murder-suicides, single-household shootings or any other spate of violence in a large country. There was 4+ in the last 30 days alone. Political "possibilities"/"maybe" isn't enough to keep an article, neither is the guess that it might have been more notable of other news wasn't prevalent. Something that didn't happen isn't justification either. Seola (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Notablity is established by coverage, which is still on going today, and not body counts. However responding to your points, this is not domestic violence (killing his ex wife, yes, going in and killing a house full of friends, no). And the body count is high, to a level rare in a non terror event as you may see here: List of rampage killers. A 9 fatality shooting, for any reason, is usually notable, as evidenced by continued coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 19:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Yeah, they shot a lot of people, and yeah, that's going to make the news. Will it attract that much attention several years later? Nobody knows yet. Mangoe (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So, the answer is that we should wait 3 years before making articles about mass shootings since we don't know if they'll be notable at first? That seems absurd. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - This story appears to have national traction (here's coverage in New York); the Plano police chief also said "we've never had a shooting of this magnitude." Plano, TX has a population of over 260,000, so this being the worst shooting in its history is likely to have lasting notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Bobherry Userspace  Talk to me!   Stuff I have done  20:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fairly straightforward application of WP:NOTNEWS. While murder is always tragic, it is not always notable for encyclopedia purposes. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete A tragedy no doubt, but given the likelihood of this being a domestic dispute gone awry, I dont think I'd call this worthy of an article for the sake of it not being notable enough to want to research say, 2 years from now, not to mention this is within WP:NOTNEWS. Bryan C. W. (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Normally I would be inclined to say delete, but looking at the extent of the coverage, we must apply WP:GNG and WP:RAPID as part of WP:NEVENT here and keep the article until it can be determined whether the event will have sustained impact. I am a bit disappointed that people are arguing to delete and keep on the grounds of whether or not there were enough people killed to give the event notability. This is entirely missing the point of notability on Wikipedia. An article on a single murder can be notable if there is significant coverage in reliable sources secondary if it has lasting impact. At the same time someone could commit 1000 murders and there might not be the coverage and impact to support an article on the subject (although this is unlikely). The spread of the coverage outside of the local effected area satisfies the idea that this should not be considered routine coverage on par with typical violent crime. Winner 42  Talk to me!  02:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * wouldn't it make sense to create an article when a sustained impact has already been established, not wait and hope for it? Anything can be covered for a few weeks by WP:ROUTINE reports and you kinda missed the bigger picture of WP:NEVENT -- like WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE. A mass shooting is "good" news for the media to cover; WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS discusses why it doesn't mean the incident is notable based on a wave of coverage. The fundamental flaw with a WP:RAPID argument is I can apply the other half: "don't rush to create articles" and still be just as correct as you. On top of that, a lasting historical significance has not been established so it was WP:TOOSOON to create this article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So the answer is to wait 2-5 years after a mass shooting to see if it becomes notable? That's absurd. This shooting has a high body count, world-wide coverage, sustained interest, and will likely continue. People dismiss this shooting as just a domestic dispute, seem to not realize that it's extremely unusual for a domestic murder to result in 9 deaths via shooting. It's probably the most notable spousal murder with the highest body count. It's also the most notable crime in Plano Texas ever. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your words, not anyone else's; nobody said it had to wait years, but the article was started the same day, and at this point we haven't even waited a month. You are giving reasons why people ought to care over the long run, but nobody is obligated to do so, when all is said and done; and at this point very little has been said or done. We can actually wait to find out whether there is real long-term notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can play this whole skeptics game with any mass shooting, or even any event. So what is the answer? Wait one month? A year? I'd like some specifics. No one has a crystal ball, after all. This shooting follows the same pattern of any other major event in terms of news coverage. There's also no strict definition of "lasting" or "Recent" or anything else, the rules are fairly vague. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2017 (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.