Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Chad Oulson


 * 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. Consensus is sourcing is sufficient to counter 1E concerns, regardless of whether that should apply in Oulson's case or not. Star  Mississippi  02:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Death of Chad Oulson

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

Completly generic and mediocre. Fails WP:GNG,   scope_creep Talk  20:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * im on the road, but this is one of the more notorious shootings of the decade. There will be literally hundreds if not thousands of sources. If this is still out here later, I’ll post a few.Jacona (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep There are many, many sources available, I'll give you three for now. There is in-depth WP:SIGCOV. It is not just local in nature, it's covered around the United States. Let's start with this,, in the New York Times, which was in the article at the time of the nomination. But sources don't have to be in the article to prove WP:N, they just have to WP:NEXIST. And in this case, anyone with access to the internet is going to find a huge number of articles providing WP:SIGCOV. Here's a 2014 front page Tampa bay times article in two parts , when Curtis Reeves was first released after 7 months. Here's a February 2016 article from Orlando during the trial. Oh, wth, here's a bonus (#4) from Eau Claire, Wisconsin . Reading WP:GNG and touching on the highlights; this coverage is significant, the sources are reliable, they are secondary, they are independent of the subject. While the coverage is concentrated in 2014 and 2022, I found articles in 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2022. I found them not only in Tampa, but all around Florida, in Texas, in the NYT, Baltimore, and other locales. This subject meets WP:GNG, and it does so resoundingly. Jacona (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Try not to use the WP:NEXIST argument on articles that was created in 2014. It is smoke and mirrors and has no bearing on here. It is a death that has been reported, but it is common, so generic and really quite mediocre as an article, that happens every day in the US. There is not one thing that makes it notable.  The New York Times has a duty of care to report shootings as does most newspapers, but that doesn't make it notable. The rest of the papers are the same. Wikipedia isn't a news reporting channel or some kind of affiliate for this type mediocrity. The actual event is so shocking, it is beyond belief relief really, but that doesn't make it notable either. All the coverage, is all WP:BLP1E. He was not notable beforehand nor was the shooter.    scope_creep Talk  08:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP1E states "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals." This is not a biography of a person, and if it were, the person died 8 years ago, so WP:BLP1E is irrelevant. Further, BLP1E states if applies only if "the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." This event was significant, in part because of the invocation of the controversial Florida "stand your ground" law. It has been very well-documented, not just when it happened, but revisited regularly for the last 8 years. BLP1E simply does not apply. WP:GNG however, does apply, and the article meets it. Jacona (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does everybody always roll that out. That applies here. Everything comes from that event. All the news.   scope_creep Talk  16:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You quote BLP1E in one breath and deny it in the next. WP:BLP1E states "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people", so that argument has zero application here. We have many articles, such as Murder of Ahmaud Arbery, Death of Caylee Anthony, Murder of Botham Jean that stem from one event in which a persons life was ended and in each of these case sthe article is about the event, not the person. That is exactly the case here. Jacona (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They are likely non-notable and will take a look at them. They are daily occurences in the United States. Both of the people were involved in this event, were non-notable before. All the coverage comes the event making it a classic WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is filling with crime reports that are generic and mediocre to the extreme.   scope_creep Talk  22:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems like exactly the type of event that should be included as per WP:NEWSEVENT CT55555 (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There is WP:SUSTAINED, international (see WP:GEOSCOPE), deep (see WP:COVERAGE) and diverse WP:DIVERSE coverage:
 * 1) https://www.tampabay.com/news/2022/02/26/after-acquittal-curtis-reeves-renews-freedom-chad-oulsons-widow-grieves-anew/
 * 2) https://abc13.com/curtis-reeves-florida-movie-theater-shooting-chad-oulson-popcorn/11635640/
 * 3) https://globalnews.ca/news/3303073/florida-theatre-texting-murder/
 * 4) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/29/florida-stand-your-ground-defense-movie-theater-shooting
 * Comment Just today, there was a 12 paragraph article in the Tampa Bay Times, an article at yahoo, abc, and plenty more about the Oulson family foundation. The coverage is widespread and ongoing. Jacona (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I added a few words to the article, and lots of sources, providing easy material for someone who would like to expand it, not that it's hard, since there are literally tens of thousands of sources available online. Jacona (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Applying the guideline to my previous discussion, (plus mention of book cites). In addition, there are a couple of book cites, including a multi-page discussion in a textbook The American System of Criminal Justice. This demonstrates notability as per the inclusion criteria the appropriate guideline, which looks for lasting effects (a college textbook certainly does). The guideline also prefers a wide geographical scope (there is local, national, and international coverage), depth, duration, and diversity of coverage (this has front-page news articles galore, book sections, etc over a course of over 8 years). In response to the nominators invoking of one event, the guideline specifically addresses one event as follows "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead." That's exactly what has been done here. Jacona (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is all due to the foundation that has been lauched this week and they were looking for publicity. All of it comes from one event.   scope_creep Talk  10:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Every "Death of..." article is about one event. That's not a reason to delete. WP:EVENTCRIT directs us to consider:
 * WP:LASTING did the event lead to something else? I think that's not 100% clear yet, but the court case appeal seems to be president setting, so it has that potential and absolutely significantly more likely here than the way you described it in the nomination "Completly generic"
 * WP:GEOSCOPE is coverage was local or not. It was international, so very notable by criterion #2
 * WP:INDEPTH is the coverage deep. It absolutely is.
 * WP:PERSISTENCE does the coverage continue for time. We're years into this, it absolutely meets this criterion.
 * WP:DIVERSE is there a range of sources, there absolutely is.
 * There are 5 variables to consider in deciding if an event is notable and this event utterly meets 4 of them and maybe meets the fifth.
 * I sometimes argue marginal cases at AfD, but this one is really very clearly meeting the criteria. CT55555 (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to keep changing your argument. You posting a press-release on the launch of the foundation to prove a point, is the beyond the pale. You also seem to be confusing the families effort to keep event into the news, to bring some kind of meaning and memory to it, Hence the reason for the foundation, with Wikipedia policies around notability and need to report events.There is nothing here that is notable. The event as it happens is completely generic and mediocre. So far in the last year, I have seen 3 of these, so they are happening all the time. They are generic and so mediocre. If it goes to no consensus and that seems to be what your trying to do, without providing a cogent argument why this particular WP:BLP1E event is notable and the policies, then any chance I get I with send it to afd and try and delete it. I see nothing special or unique about this that makes it standout.   scope_creep Talk  14:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of acting "beyond the pale" was truly unexpected and I would be happy if you could withdraw that. I promise you that I'm acting in good faith, within normal ethical and moral boundaries, and consider my behaviour here to be within acceptable norms.
 * I don't think I've shared a press release. I shared links to four newspaper articles, but if I have shared a press release, please be specific where I did so.
 * I don't agree with your analysis about the family's efforts, what ever they are or are not doing it really not part of my thinking or argument here. I think the importance of the court case and the public interest in self defence law in USA is really what's driving years of international media attention. But I don't think the reasons behind this are important, things meet the general notability guidelines or they don't.
 * I think I have demonstrated clearly that this meets the general notability criteria and please note while participation in this discussion has been limited, everyone else other than yourself agrees to keep.
 * I don't understand your point about me trying to steer this towards no consensus. I'm arguing to keep. I think the argument for that is really clear.
 * I don't know what to say about your comments about planning to take this to AfD, when we're literally at AfD.
 * If we could continue this discussion with civility and without personal accusations, I would be welcome and will continue. If that is not possible for you, you might see silence from here from here. CT55555 (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The text of BLP1E makes it clear it is irrelevant in this discussion but since an editor continues to refer to it, I feel it necessary to quote the policy in a greater length: "The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the people notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals." It's been 8 years, so we should be looking at WP:BIO1E, not WP:BLP1E. Jacona (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the points raised by editors above. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Question @User:scope_creep, is the three page section of a law textbook just routine coverage? Jacona (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Keep - The case is a landmark trial. Tampa defense attorney Richard Escobar referred to the case as "the largest self-defense case ever in Florida".  Janae Thomas, a Tampa-based attorney and former assistant state attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County said "It's going to open the flood gates for these stand-your-ground cases because now we're going to say that people can go into public places, they can be armed, they can start a confrontation because that's what the evidence shows".  Harvard University professor Caroline Light stated "This means more people with guns, seeing a certain right to use lethal aggression, and then say, after the fact, that they were in fear for their life".  It is unique, in that Reeves felt he was in danger due to only popcorn being thrown in a very dark theatre, but that because of his age, that he felt threatened enough to shoot Oulson. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment We're in WP:SNOWBALL keep territory at this point and I politely request that the nominator withdraw the AfD rather than labour this debate any longer. CT55555 (talk) 03:09, 30 May 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.