Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azusa 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Azusa shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS. More recent reports are clarifying that the shooter did not directly hit a polling station, but that polling stations were nearby and not targets. It was a run-of-the-mill shootout between the shooter and police after the former killed a neighbor for whatever reason (I'm assuming personal disputes). The injured were hit in the crossfire. All in all, definitely not newsworthy in the long run, and the initial story was probably spun right off the bat due to the ongoing election coverage at the time. Another reason why news outlets need to check their sources first before going onto a story. Parsley Man (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTNEWS No indication that this was election related or anything other than and "ordinary" crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as creator. Even if this would normally be a run of the mill crime, the extensive coverage it got in the news was notable, even if that coverage was due to bad reporting. What sources are you talking about which clear this up? Could you cite them here? The two I used were:


 * That this received additional coverage to "clear up" the case only serves to supports it having continual coverage and notability, as opposed to something which received no followup. Ranze (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Mostly local sources, which have been continuing to cover the shooting after the higher-tier mainstream media sources like CNN have moved on to the protests against Donald Trump. But, ongoing coverage or not, it doesn't matter. Small shootings have been generally judged to be WP:NOTNEWS and deleted. Parsley Man (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Ranze. It appears that the "near a polling" place angle briefly caught some media attention; of course, most of urban America is "near a polling place," and media have not continued on this tack. I do see why it was created, but unless there is some ongoing attention..., or rationale for more than local notability....E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * weak keep - per coverage. not run of the mill per this,BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per what coverage? Are you talking about the election? Parsley Man (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per overall coverage. also after-election. BabbaQ (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is very poor reasoning. Coverage was overshadowed by the election itself and was restricted to local sources. After the election, the coverage has completely stopped. There are no more recent articles on this incident anymore. Parsley Man (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I didn't hear about this at the time (I was working at the polls for 17 hours), but it seems to be part of the fabric of an historic date. Let's wait a few more days and see. Bearian (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How, exactly? This did not affect the election whatsoever besides a little media freakout and misunderstanding, and besides, the coverage seems to have completely stopped for a couple of days. Parsley Man (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It got a bit of coverage when it first happened, when they thought it was possibly related to the election, but once it was discovered to not be so, this coverage pretty much stopped.  Though tragic, it was just a run-of-the-mill crime, with no lasting notability whatsoever.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Parsely in response to some claims you've been making about this like "the initial story was probably spun" and "Coverage was overshadowed" and "This did not affect the election whatsoever besides a little media freakout and misunderstanding" these 3 claims seem like injection of personal opinion into the matter. Do you have any reliable sources supporting your claims that the story was spun, or that it was overshadowed, or that had no effect?

"restricted to local sources" and "After the election, the coverage has completely stopped" are more tangible claims which I can address. Your first claim is clearly wrong because The Independent covered it, and that is a British paper. This means it went beyond local coverage, it had international/intercontinental coverage in Europe. Regarding your second claim, the United States presidential election, 2016 happened November 8 which would mean anything from November 9 and later would be post-election coverage. The following source shows coverage from November 10, disproving the claim that coverage "completely stopped": There's also another from November 15 showing ongoing coverage. Would you care to rephrase these 2 objections? Ranze (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - A shooting in which only one person died and three others were injured? Yeah, it doesn't even meet WP:GNG. Parsley Man (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Today, article for murder of one person - what tomorrow? News about pick-pocketing. This is just an ordinary crime. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  06:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOTNEWS. Unfortunately, this is just another routine crime in the United States of gun-loving America. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. In the same line, it is simply not Notable. No reputable news source has ever said it was. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with other deletes as NOTNEWS. Routine crime. MB 22:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ALL these three !votes above are classic IDONTLIKEIT. You claim notnews and simply states reasons that goes inside IDONTLIKEIT. Without any kind of expanded explanation.BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Tell me, what would you find non-notable about a shooting? Parsley Man (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - A crime without a long-term impact. There is no encyclopedic value in this incident. WP:NOTNEWS. Ceosad (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It happened less than a month ago. no telling of long term impact. the rest of your rationale is IDONTLIKEIT.BabbaQ (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The shooter is dead, coverage has stopped, and the shooting did not affect the election in any noticeable way. I'd say long-term impact is an impossibility in this case. Parsley Man (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:ROUTINE. I see editors here pointing to a smoking gun, but looking at the sources don't see it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - this appears to be a generic crime with no indication of any significance outside its local area and no lasting significance there. I'd note that those people above claiming that a mention in The Independent means it was "covered in a British newspaper" are engaged in a good-faith misunderstanding; the Indy is long-since defunct as a newspaper, and the website that now uses the name is a dubious news aggregator and opinion site run by Alexander Lebedev, and (despite still calling itself an "online newspaper") is basically a more Putin-friendly version of Buzzfeed. &#8209; Iridescent 22:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:ROUTINE. I recall this happening on election day; after the initial spike of concern it was apparent that this was local trouble and not part of any broader narrative. There's no continuing coverage; if this somehow has fresh developments which make it notable it can always be re-created. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2016 (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.