Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frankstown Township Shooting (2nd nomination)


 * 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. L Faraone  00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC) The result was no consensus. L Faraone  02:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Frankstown Township Shooting
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:N and NOTNEWS. News event without enduring coverage. M ASEM (t) 20:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete covered by multiple sources, but not many people were killed.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Of definite historical interest Jewishprincess (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There has been no apparent coverage of this since the event broke. That doesn't suggest "definite historical interest". --M ASEM (t) 20:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The "coverage" was all on the day of the shooting or the day after. According to WP:PERSISTENCE, "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this will unlikely be significant history by the beginning of next year.-- TV Man 13 23:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)  Banned sock
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article was !voted to be kept in a previous Afd a mere 5 months ago, but is renominated here to make a point, a violation, in my view, of WP:POINT per this exchange from the heated debate at the N.O. Mother's Day Parade shooting article deletion discussion and I consider the nomination disruptive, to say the least. Jus  da  fax   01:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The results of the first AFD (done 8 days after the event) have no relevance on this one as plenty of time for enduring coverage to have arisen has elapsed.  And it's certainly not pointy to nominate other articles based on a current AFD when they fail established policy and guidelines. --M ASEM  (t) 01:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So, according to you, you can just keep nominating articles for deletion over and over until you get the result you want? Jus  da  fax   01:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, no? I've never seen this article before today, and it clearly fails notability guidelines, and there's no sources to justify it as an enduring topic months out from it. Ergo it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. --M ASEM (t) 01:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see any pointy behaviour. I think it's perfectly acceptable to nominate articles for deletion 5 months after a previous one closed. However, if the nominator does it only to prove a point, yes that is disruptive, but I do not think that the nominator has done anything wrong, and this discussion is for the good of the encyclopedia. Sadly, there are some pages that are nominated every 6 months, like Template:Cleanup. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the main reason it was nominated was to prove a point, along with 2 other articles. The conversation started here. Articles for deletion/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting USchick (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Bringing up other examples of articles as a reason to keep, under the idea of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, means those examples will face scrutiny too. --M ASEM (t) 20:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see how the nomination might be considered pointy. I am unmoved, however, from my opinion on this subject. I think that the other AfD that you mentioned is irrelevant to this one; individual articles must stand up to meet notability criteria, consensuses, and precedents independently. You can set precedents, but you can't refer to another AfD as an argument for another one. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, notability has been established by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Of which has not extended beyond a day or two of the day the shooting occurred. Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Export to wikinews - Lucy346 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. 1292simon (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2013 (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.