Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 California stabbing rampage


 * 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. Perhaps a bit of time will provide clarity on whether or not this event has lasting impact. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 06:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 California stabbing rampage

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS, no indication of any lasting impact whatsoever, currently simply a retelling of news articles. Nableezy 02:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, I agree with the nominator's explanation. Here come the Suns (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that "a new debate on prison reform is opened" according to sources in the article, involving blue-linked legal experts vs. what the police says about the case, it appears the implications of the case may extend beyond the current and ongoing coverage. XavierItzm (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep stabbing rampages like this are rare here in the US as were more used to gun rampages, the event has been covered by numerous national news sources, though to have this article stay, it would need to be heavily rewritten YatesTucker00090 (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. rayukk &#124; talk 05:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is a notable stabbing spree rather than an ordinary crime. The article needs to be improved a lot; I don't know why the article has had so few editors. Jim Michael (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jim Michael.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:RAPID the question whether it is lasting  will be kwown after some time.But for now it is keep.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RAPID at this point. Wide coverage at the moment - international - e.g. BBC, Guardian, The Hindu. Unusual enough (large scale violence without a gun in the the US) that it will probably get continuing coverage - but in any event assessing continuing coverage at this point requires a crystal ball. Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. –apap04talk&#124;contributions 09:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS In this U.S. we have had over 200 mass shootings this year, so far.  Do they all merit articles?
 * I admit, multiple stabbings is a category apart.
 * OTOH, WP:RAPID is a prophylactic against premature deletion, the question being whether it is lasting? 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment I have on a professional capacity written much about mass shootings, particularly violence in the work place. When I first penned articless beck about 15 years ago, they were rare. the St. Valentine's Day Massacre was a benchmark. Sadly, this stuff is daily news, and a testament to the ineptitude of our Congress and Executive to meaningfully do something. The Brady bill was allowed to expire! 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems a valid topic, sources are good and passes WP:GNG in my view. No comments from ? Govvy (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - blocked at the moment.Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Strange one, I am so use to seeing EM Gregory's comments are AfD. Blocked as a sock? Makes no sense to me... Govvy (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well not quite just for the moment if yes at the moment.  nableezy  - 14:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd argue that fatal mass stabbings are more notable than mass shootings. Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What would this argument be based on? Im trying to understand the thinking that leads to articles like this being created. In a city near and dear to my heart, 4 people were stabbed in July at a party. Two others in the middle of downtown also in July. The number of people stabbed in the poorer (and browner/blacker) areas of the city isnt even something I can find reported on. This in a city that so far this year has 296 murders this year. Stabbings are so incredibly routine in some cities they are not even reported in the local news. How is this anything other than a news story that nobody will note in any way in 6 months? I see the lineup here and it's pretty clear this will be kept, but I legit dont understand how people think this is an encyclopedia article or even a topic that possibly could be turned into one.  nableezy  - 14:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Stabbings are common, but fatal mass stabbings aren't. Jim Michael (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS, this is just a crime no WP:GEOSCOPE, not every crime needs an article. Lightburst (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS. No indication yet of lasting significance. WP:RAPID is never a reason for keeping at afd (it's guidance that has a counterpart -- WP:DELAY, after all). There may be some things that it makes sense to cover immediately, before all the facts come out, while we're still relying on continuously self-correcting (or not!) news coverage, but crimes like this, with the many layers of BLP in play, are not among them. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. This is receiving attention because of other recent attacks in the US, but it's otherwise not notable enough. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:NOTNEWS, etc. Yilloslime (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:RAPID also meets WP:DIVERSE I added BBC source there are also Guardian  --Shrike (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok? So far all sources are from the same day it happened (as is your Guardian source). I just checked CNN, the source used to start this article and there is nothing at all about the stabbing on the main page.--TMCk (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Article now has four sources from August 9th.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note. The author's creator was blocked after an SPI report, filed by, revealed E.M.Gregory was engaging in persistent WP:Sockpuppetry. / &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Socking, including avoiding a topic ban on immigration and crime (that this was one of the early edits isn't reassuring in this article, given past context, though at this point it probably doesn't matter). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 21:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable event. Oranjelo100 (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, the sequence of events has well exceeded the WP:GNG. For example, the Associated Press, a worldwide news syndication service, is reporting daily on the subject matter; the latest is that the suspect has been charged with 11 felonies.  No crystal ball is needed to realise that as the case winds its way through the courts, in will remain in the news for the foreseeable future.  XavierItzm (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:GNG with continuous coverage and it's too early to test for sustained coverage imv, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG as of today with continued coverage. And good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural Delete as article was created by now-blocked sockpuppet who was topic banned from "illegal immigration, immigration policy, and the relationship between crime and immigration" which this article falls under (though it's unclear if that was evident at the time of its creation).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't read any stories that identify Zachary Castañeda as an immigrant. Furthermore, the page was not created in evasion of any block.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no claim in the article about anybody being or having anything to do with immigration, no article categories link to anything to do with immigration. The article has nothing to do with immigration.  Yet aspersions are being made about "crime", "immigration", and "illegal immigration," which are three entirely unrelated subjects that have nothing to do with each other, and much less with this article, nor this AfD.  Frankly, it is a very insulting claim.  As an immigrant, I am highly offended.  A retraction and full apology is in order. XavierItzm (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Some sources identify the killer & victims as Hispanic, but that doesn't tell us whether they were legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, or from the US. Jim Michael (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Jim, that's the point. Assuming that a Hispanic person is an immigrant is also a woeful insult.  The article clearly says that the suspect is Hispanic.  But jumping from that to "crime", "immigration", and "illegal immigration," is just awful.  XavierItzm (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed - I'm agreeing with you. Immigration status in regard to the suspect (if he's an immigrant) would be relevant enough to include. Jim Michael (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that great defender of the Hispanic people, XavierItzm and lest we forget E.M.G's valiant effort to promote understanding and harmony in that topic. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Created by now-blocked account, so our starting point should be deletion. If we go beyond that, it comes under WP:NOTNEWS: yes, it's got some attention, as many individual crimes do, but there's no evidence of broader or lasting impact. Bondegezou (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't created in violation of a block or ban, so that's not a reason to delete it. Jim Michael (talk) 13:14, 14 August 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.