Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Langley shootings


 * 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.

2022 Langley shootings
The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) WWGB (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


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

I would like it nominated on the grounds of wp:NOTNEWS. Coverage of the topic is *exclusively* from news sources covering the incident. There is no evidence that this event will be an enduringly notable event, ... considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. I would support this article being draftified until such time as evidence emerges that this incident is enduringly notable (for instance, if it continues to recieve coverage and attention from sources months later, or is later shown to be integral to understanding some kind of legal reform, etc). 128.189.112.147 (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In particular, WP:EVENTCRIT, suggests the following guidelines:


 * An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. - no evidence of this at this time
 * An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. - not the case as all the sources used, along with sources found, are reformulating the same reuters/CBC piece.
 * Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle - unclear right now as it literally happened today
 * Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. - this is indeed true, but again, all the sources are regurtitating the same reuters/CBC source, thus should be counted as less valuable, as sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. CoreyToldMeToDoThis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral Comment — WP:RAPID is at play here with the article being nominated for AfD hours after creation & at the time of nomination, still contained a template. I recommend no editors make any !votes (Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirects, or Draftify) for at least 24 hours.  That will ensure the article’s topic would have the time to show any potential for notability. Any editors who gave an !vote prior to this message (or within 4-5 hours after this message) will receive a ping after 24 hours for a chance to reassess the article.  Prior !votes may or may not change, but that will give a current event article any chance to show potential for lasting notability. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated/promised, here are the editors who voted prior or within 4 hours of the WP:RAPID message. You may or may not change your !vote, but any confirmations/changes will ensure they were not involved with any "quick" decisions, aka, WP:RAPID. , and . Elijahandskip (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RAPID is about not quickly deleting an article and it therefore does not apply to my keep vote. I don't think editors should be obliged to restate their votes, but for the avoidance of doubt, I know that I may update my vote and I have chosen not to. CT55555 (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep I think this nomination is too hasty. My WP:BEFORE searches informed me that this is the currently most popular news item in the CBC. I see already it attracting international news. It seems likely to attract significant, sustained coverage, it seems likely to have lasting effect. That is somewhere between informed analysis and speculation, which is why we should wait and not make a hasty delete decision. CT55555 (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article does not break the wp:NOTNEWS policy in my opinion.
 * Rule one of wp:NOTNEWS is "No original reporting." this wiki page does not break that rule. All information on the wiki page is from verifiable sources.
 * Rule 2 of wp:NOTNEWS is "Don't write Wikipedia articles in the style of a newspaper [essentially]." This wikipage doesn't break that rule either.
 * The 3rd rule of wp:NOTNEWS is "Who's Who" which states, "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event." This wiki page follows that rule. It is about the event (the shootings,) not a biography of the perp.
 * The final rule of wp:NOTNEWS is "No Celebrity gossip and diary." This wikipedia page is about a spree killing, not celebrity gossip. This wiki article does not break the wp:NOTNEWS policy in my opinion.Silent-Rains (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fairly obvious Keep A relatively rare event of this type in Canada, which will receive future coverage. We have large numbers of such articles, unfortunately, mostly relating to the US naturally. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep These such events are pretty rare in Canada, and when they happen, it usually occurs on Ontario. The fact that the nominator is complaining only about newspapers covering the shootings is rather unusual because it's barely been a day since the attacks. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep MrMemer223 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't have to, but it will be more persuasive to who ever closes this if you way why you !voted that way. CT55555 (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep for now per above comments. Given that this event is fairly recent, consensus may warrant revisiting at a later date. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Silent-Rains' explained the reasoning the best. This incident was significant enough for Alert Ready phone broadcasts to be issued, which are very rarely used for civil emergencies in British Columbia. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: per above, and close early per WP:SNOW. –– FormalDude   talk   00:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RAPID.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a mass shooting in Canada which is rare. Sideriver84 (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Seems significant for now. Worth revisiting later to see if it passes WP:10YT, or if this is another WP:109PAPERS violation. 96.91.3.165 (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as I agree it seems significant.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:31, 28 July 2022 (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.