Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Dallas Courthouse 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.  Sandstein  19:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 Dallas Courthouse shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

2019 Dallas Courthouse shooting and Earle Cabell Federal Building and Courthouse are both stubs, and the event will not likely be notable in 10 years. Jax 0677 (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep due to WP:SIGCOV of incel motivation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable event, noteworthy photos. A merge is a possibility (ongoing proposal), but not delete. many extremist views should probably be added to the article; incel motivation is not the only one.  w umbolo   ^^^  00:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * do you still support a merge? Because you can't nominate an article for deletion if you propose a merge. w umbolo   ^^^  00:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I am not opposed to a merge, nor am I opposed to keeping the article history in tact, but I don't think that at this time, that this should be a standalone article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Nobody hurt outside the shooter and a 'treated and released' injury to a bystander, and the security did the exact job they were supposed to. Without the motivation and subject history which is used to fill article space (and if this was at a state/municipal courthouse), we'd have just another local news story that likely would only get quick attention on Metroplex newscasts. Plus not a fan of giving permanent space to a subject that probably did it to get news mentions and an article here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The # of people shot is not an WP:NCRIME criterion. "impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage" are "as well whether the coverage is routine."  While it was too WP:RAPID for either the creation or deletion of this page, the AfD is here. We cannot know what the "duration" of coverage will be.  But the motivation of the shooter meets WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep enough information here that a merge would be awkward for the shorter courthouse article. Passes GNG. Rab V (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Attempted terroristic attack that significantly disrupted a metropolitian area coupled with the analysis and suspected motivations raises this to the point of a soft keep in my book. I do not agree with merging it into the courthouse article,and believe that a spin out/"See also" would be the best treatment. Hasteur (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, this will probably be kept due to the high ratio of "keepers" over "deleters" but how does this meet WP:NEVENT ie. "it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time."? doesn't WP:NOTNEWS apply? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that we already have WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH and there has even been a bit of WP:LASTING on military bases with new orders about how to screen for this sort of individual (covered on page.) Only time will tell in re: WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, but this attempted mass murder in a federal courthouse certainly does not fall under WP:NOTNEWS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * it just seems that some parts of wikipedia appear to be treated as a pseudo-news service ie. this shooting took place on 17 june, article created on the 18th, how can an assessment be made that this is encyclopedic so soon after it happened? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Only a tiny fraction of U.S. shootings generate articles on Wikipedia, most - and the statistics are staggering - are NOTNEWS. This one has generated non-local and INDEPTH coverage because of the shooter's motivations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies, as someone who lives in a quiet place, overlooked the incredible amount of gun related shootings in the US. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Good references as well.BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - once notable always notable meets WP:GNG. Good references suggest WP:SNOW Lightburst (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2019 (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.