Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Henderson 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 and none appears likely to emerge given split !votes following the relist. Star  Mississippi  20:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

2020 Henderson shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article was originally created by a now-blocked sockpuppet of in violation of a ban. In addition to that, there's no evidence that this incident has received any sustained media coverage and will continue to receive any. Most of the sources are local, and all but two of them are from 2020. Shootings where four people die, including the gunman, are a dime a dozen in the U.S. nowadays, and this doesn't look any special. Love of Corey (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - When I tried the "first page of hits on google" notability test, all relevant hits on the first page, except for one, were already used as source. So at a minimum not much chance this article could be expanded much beyond its current state. (Note, depending on the words I entered into the Google search bar, some results on the first page would be for an unrelated shooting in North Carolina that has similar key words.) However, I would note that it has received coverage beyond local New York TimesCNNDaily Mail with the last of those 3 links being the lone "first page of google hits" that was not already used as a source. Also this source is dated 2022, so it has had at least a token amount of staying power in the news. Is that enough to merit keeping the article? I'm not sure but am leaning no.Dave (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Nevada. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Nom mentions all but two sources are from 2020. I'm neutral on deletion but wanted to point out WP:NTEMP. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This tragedy is notable enough, so the article could stay, as long as more sourcing could be found. TH1980 (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting as I see a divided opinion here thus far. I hope another week of policy-based arguments will tilt things either towards Delete or Keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete he only appears to have shot 4 people, that's almost routine now in the US. I don't find any lingering coverage of the event, three years later. It's sad, but a routine crime event. Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can only say that I am glad that I live in a country where shooting a few people to death is not a routine crime event. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article cites enough sources to meet GNG, and notability is not temporary. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 13:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - The shooting has received sustained coverage due to the controversy over whether one of the victims was shot by police and an ongoing federal lawsuit by the family. Examples here and here (to be fair, these were published after this AFD was started). Hatman31 (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - continued coverage as presented above. Sources in article are sufficient as well. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020 - this is an event article, so the WP:EVENT guideline and WP:NOTNEWS policy applies. Reliable sources do not show an WP:EFFECT or a significant or widespread impact, and there appears to be no WP:INDEPTH coverage with analysis to support notability. With regard to WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, the initial burst of news coverage does not create notability, and there is the recent AP wire story about a "non-judicial public review" (that occurred because there will be no criminal case against the involved officers), and a civil lawsuit facing a motion to dismiss (that according to local coverage, is based on the defense of qualified immunity). Per the guideline, the recent sources also do not show an effect and significant or widespread impact - this subject is newsworthy, but per WP:N, even if a subject appears to have WP:GNG coverage, an article can still be excluded per WP:NOT, and the WP:EVENT guideline helps assess coverage and apply WP:NOTNEWS policy. Beccaynr (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, after seeing nearly ten unique sources (of varying national prominence) I can't imagine ever supporting deletion. Clearly notable, and notability is not temporary. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Regrettably, this is a routine shooting. I don't see this ever having any lasting effect. Redirecting to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020 would also be acceptable. --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2023 (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.