Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fero’s Bar massacre


 * 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. Although there are opinions to the contrary, consensus is that coverage is insufficient to elevate this incident above other local news stories.  Sandstein  07:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Fero’s Bar massacre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Crime story with purely local coverage. No indication of WP:notability outside the local area. noq (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nothing indicates lasting significance or wide-spread coverage per WP:EVENTCRIT. Bits and pieces of non-local coverage, like this, but that's not nearly enough. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that it has been noted outside of the local area makes it significant enough to keep. There is no need to delete a significant crime just because it does not have international coverage. Editors often want to delete crime and terrorist attacks as non-notable even with international coverage like the Germany Theater Viernheim shooting. Where is the rule that events must be deleted if most of the coverage is local? Bachcell (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:EVENTCRIT is where this is laid out, specifically: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. What does this have to do with the Viernheim shooting? Who said anything about terrorism? Bringing that into this discussion only muddies the waters. This was arson to cover up a murder/robbery. Not every tragic event is of encyclopedic significance. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope! Doesn't meet Steve's Arbitrary Event Notability Point Threshhold. Needs a bit more oomph and maybe some coverage other than the Denver Post. Th e S te ve  09:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)'
 * Delete Lets check Steve's Seven-Point Event Notability Criteria&trade;:
 * What to say? What a horrible event. Nice touch adding the trademark symbol in your !vote, though. North America1000 14:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep To me, it doesn't look so simple. Note, for example, that it took place in 2013, but is producing headlines in 2016, especially since it is a death penalty case, , .  Most coverage is in Colorado media, but by no means all, (Irish Times: ; Boston Globe: ; Sky News: ; Chicago Tribune, []http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-holmes-da-qa-20150824-story.html],  these a mere sampling of what's out there.)  There are discussions of the case in discussions of the death penalty in Colorado in papers as far from Colorado as the Los Angeles Times  but I think it passes GNG mostly on the basis of the intensity of statewide media discussion of the case as part of Colorado's debate over the future of the death penalty (2016 stories such as , , ).E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - has made major headlines. the article is poorly made but that is not a reason for deletion. more sources needs to be added when this article has been Kept.BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOTNEWS, if editors believe there is relevance concerning future of death penalty in Colorado, more appropriate that words are added here. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on news. Plenty of sources that points to notability.BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Still have not seen any good reasoning other than IDONTLIKEIT based on article quality. That is not a reason for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and I'll note this is not a "Liking"-style vote at all, it's simply an actual matter of having nothing else but expected coverage, regardless of countries, as that's what news is; coverage that is mentioned worldwide especially if it's a newsworthy subject. Other than that, I'm simply not seeing anything else of actual convincing substance. SwisterTwister   talk  04:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * DELETE I see no indication that this is anything but a local crime with nothing exceptional to establish notability. Clearly a tragedy but not more than that.  MB  03:16, 23 July 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.