Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2019 Philadelphia 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 redirect to Philadelphia Police Department. Based on my assessment of the discussion, the delete argument hinges on "page was created in a rush" and that it's too early to establish notability, that the topic does not meet various inclusion guidelines (these posted in the opening post), doesn't need its own article and that the keep arguments do not explain how "coverage" establishes notability or how mass shootings are notable (there is also a question about whether this was a mass shooting). The keeps are arguing that there is significant coverage - including brief coverage in national news organizations - that the event is significant, that mass shootings are inherently notable (paraphrasing Rklawton's argument) and finally a however contested request for WP:IAR. Finally, the merge case is that this appears to be a simple police operation that went awry and should thus be discussed on the page of the police force involved, Philadelphia Police Department. Going by headcount there is 5+2 (the deletion nomination plus Inter&anthro's post) delete, 1+1+1 merge (I am counting "or" voters double, +1 is Blaylockjam10's conditional merge argument and the other +1) and 7+1 (+1 is Blaylockjam10's conditional keep argument) keep arguments. I've ignored one sockpuppet and am inclined to consider Blaylockjam10's stance as a merge given that nobody has posted evidence of new gun legislation yet.

On balance, it seems like the discussion is more supportive of getting rid of the article, as the "get rid of it" side is slightly prevailing by headcount and more importantly their arguments about there being no indication of notability is well taken, while most of the keep arguments are mere "significant coverage exists" with little explanation of how this establishes notability (not all coverage makes a topic notable; the claim of international coverage comes closest but as noted by WP:GEOSCOPE it does not automatically imply notability) and some claims of inherent notability that aren't grounded in any policy or guideline.

That leaves the question of how to get rid of the article. The delete camp has for the most part not contested any merge argument, but these are in the numerical minority and some of the merge proponents' arguments appear to be compatible with deletion. I don't particularly like this option has nobody has explicitly suggested it and it thus has a little supervote-ish character, but actually redirecting seems like the best way to satisfy both the "get rid of the article" stance while also leaving the possibility for useful content to be transported over to the police force article. Thus, redirect it is - contestations can be brought at the usual venues like deletion review, my talk page and WP:RFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 Philadelphia shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This seems to have been created in a bit of a rush. As of right now I have serious doubts it passes WP:N(E). Specifically I am looking at WP:EVENTCRIT #4 and WP:LASTING. See also WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT. - Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I feel that both the article, and this nomination, are too soon to establish if the subject is notable enough for an article here on Wikipedia. The incident ended less than 24 hours ago, and there is still are some reports and information coming out. Yet to be seen what the impact will be. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - If this article is retained, I suggest the title should be changed to 2019 Philadelphia shootout. The volume of gunfire produced by civilian firearms in urban settings is only half of the story. This situation, like the 2015 San Bernardino attack produced a heavy volume of police gunfire. In both situations the percentage of hits per shot fired apparently favored the civilians, although police investigations and press releases have a disincentive to attribute damage to police gunfire. Since every bullet fired hits something, it might be valuable to cover situations encouraging assessment of whether police weapons and procedures adequately consider the probability of collateral damage from over-penetration and ricochets in urban settings. Thewellman (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * KEEP – Significant event; significant coverage.  It irks me that every time a new article is created, someone (both inevitably and immediately) calls for its deletion.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm getting tired of people rushing to create articles about in progress events when it's not at all clear they will meet our guidelines for encyclopedic notability. I'm guessing you did not bother to read any of the linked guidelines I posted. Significant coverage is not the only criteria for determining the notability of events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic relevance is not a particularly high standard, especially with regards to an event of national and international significance. Additionally, this incident hits all the marks of an article that shouldn't be deleted: it's presented neutrally; it's readily verifiable, per every major news organization in the United States; it contains no speculation or unfounded hypotheses; and it's encyclopedic. Frevangelion (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment If someone wants to post some statistics on how many incidents there are of black men shooting at the police, that may help us determine the notability of this particular example. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Significant coverage. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage is not the only criteria for determining notability of events. If this is the best that can be mustered in response to the linked PAG in my nom then I am becoming increasingly convinced that this page does not pass WP:EVENT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Significant event with national coverage. It took up the A1 slot briefly in several national news organizations, including CNN and the New York Times. The War on Drugs is still ongoing, and I consider this particular incident as an instance of the greater international campaign to curb drug trafficking. Frevangelion (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete If this is a small notable battle in the War on Drugs, that's a good article for a few sentences on this. But a bunch of flesh wounds fade out of history almost as soon as the arraignment, generally. No lasting impact on the wider guns, race or policing issues, either, I predict. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, sort of thing that happens all the time, of no impact. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Happens "all the time"? Can you please cite a few other examples?  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * GunViolenceArchive.org shows 80 other Americans (including ten other Philadelphians, five at once) were shot and survived since August 15 (and 24 weren't so lucky). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're talking shot cops, only three since this case, but one dude was shot at least three times. Chest, leg and groin. His partner took it in the bulletproof vest instead (apparently still a standoff right now). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and they had eight-hour standoffs, that made national news, also ... correct?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This Missouri showdown is going on five hours, so I can't say yet. Bet somebody dies, though. Everything makes national news online. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Seven hours now, and an hour ago it made CNN International headlines. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We Got Him! James D. Cummings, 31, safe and sound. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 *  Keep or merge - Do NOT delete. Keep, or merge parts of the article to Philadelphia_Police_Department. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually a merge would be an acceptable alternative to deletion and the Philly PD is a good target article. Maybe a paragraph or two at the most. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to Philadelphia_Police_Department. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge No need for this shooting to have it's own article...especially since all police officers received minor injuries and were released from the hospital Wednesday night while the standoff was still ongoing. Deathscape (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for now It sounds like this may lead to new gun legislation in Pennsylvania. If that happens, I think this article would meet WP:LASTING. If it doesn't lead to new legislation, merge to the "Notable events" section of the Philadelphia Police Department article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:CRYSTAL; 2) if it does lead to new gun legislation in Philadelphia, and if that legislation is notable, this would be a worthy bit to include in an article on that legislation, to help explain its origin. But that doesn't support it having its own article. TJRC (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete this page dont give this person fame only 6 people were slighty injured this is not worthy of an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaysfan7077 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)  (moved to the proper area by 75.111.23.74 (talk))
 * Keep per above, this is a significant event and has been covered adequately. Davey2116 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this was just another drug bust, if somewhat more bloody - nothing of historical importance rating an entry in an encyclopedia - by Monday it will be lost in the scramble of other news stories50.111.3.150 (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. - Seriously, this one was rushed. Writing an article about a news story while the event is on-going is rarely justified. We can't begin to evaluate Notability_(events), genreally discussing enduring significance. Moving it to the "Notable events" section of the PPD article is the same problem, different page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above, definitely received significant coverage. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, significant coverage is not the sole criteria for WP:EVENTs. I feel like I'm banging my head on a brick wall here. Please review the policies and guidelines in the nominating statement and address them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to Philadelphia_Police_Department. This is not a mass shooting like the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting, the 2019 El Paso shooting or the 2019 Dayton shooting. It's a police operation that went bad when the suspect began shooting. I don't think this operation passes the WP:10YEARTEST; it's more in in the nature of news than encyclopedia material. It's certainly pertinent to the merge target, and should be discussed there. TJRC (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Given the decades-long debates over gun control and mass shootings in the U.S., I think any article devoted specifically to a single mass shooting, properly sourced, is sufficiently notable. I'm not proposing to define a mass shooting here, but I think six wounded people would likely qualify in whatever definition we choose to adopt. Rklawton (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your position appears to be inconsistent with our policies and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They can always claim WP:IAR Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * True. IAR is one of those things that I have always believed should be safe, legal... and rare. IAR is a bit like what is sometimes called an "affirmative defense." In effect you are conceding that PAG is against you, but you are saying we should make an exception owing to some special circumstance. If you are making an IAR argument you should state as much clearly, and why you think an exception to our customary PAG is called for. In this case the argument appears to be less an appeal for a one off exception and more that we should chuck our guidelines entirely where the subject is American mass shootings. I don't see a convincing IAR argument for a limited one time exception given the pedestrian nature of the subject, much less the suggestion that we should elevate American gun violence above our notability guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: An article devoted specifically to a single mass shooting, properly sourced, is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't found automatic notability for mass shootings anywhere in our guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin This would appear to be a discussion where WP:NOTAVOTE should be born in mind. I would encourage the closing admin to read the comments and weigh the WP:PAG cited by both sides in their arguments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 22 August 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.