Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings


 * 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. Closing as Keep because it is the only reasonable assessment of the entire discussion, but the "delete" arguments are certainly plausible and serious. Since this is, after all, a rather recent subject, I recommend revisiting the article at AfD in 3-to-6 months. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Already out of the news, and was never very prominent while it was in. By way of example, the New York Times did not consider it significant enough to send out an email news alert (in contrast the incident in Sydney or today's shooting in Pakistan) and I don't think it ever made it to the front page of the BBC News website; it was not on television news in the UK (again in contrast to Sydney and Pakistan). While the absence of such coverage is not conclusive, the presence of it is a strong indicator of notability. Shooting sprees are very common in the United States. The most notorious is probably Columbine, and the most memorable of recent times is probably the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and neither had much lasting impact; there have been dozens of school shootings and hundreds of shooting sprees since Columbine and, tragically, none of have had any lasting impact. There's no reason to believe that this will be any different, especially given that it has dropped form the headlines after less than 24 hours. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This is really just a local news event. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSLOCAL isn't a reason to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Being a local news story clearly has bearing on notability. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, if you were talking about something other than an event, you might be right. In the case of local history, or local politicians, perhaps there can be notability. However, in the case of local minor events, such as this, there isn't any per WP:EVENT. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Consider this event is being covered by major news networks (CNN, MSNBC) it goes beyond local news. Were Sandy Hook and Aurora just local news also? Benbuff91 14:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if newspapers are covering it, because we are not a newspaper. It matters whether it has encyclopaedic significance, and it simply doesn't. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. To people who are interesting in stories about PA and mass murders, they might disagree. Benbuff91 14:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS is a policy, not "my opinion". RGloucester  — ☎ 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You might want to review the policy you so freely cite, because nothing it talks about applies to this article. Everyking (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might like to do that, Mr Journalist extraordinaire: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". RGloucester  — ☎ 04:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ..."For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Everyking (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, routine reporting, like that on local crimes that have no historical significance. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this a "local crime"? I assume by "local crime" you would mean "only judged significant by local standards"...the sort of thing that might make the evening news in one's town, or the local paper, right? But obviously this crime has been judged significant outside the area where it happened, as we can see just by looking at the sources. Everyking (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no sources. Open any news page now. Do you see any WP:DIVERSE articles on this? I didn't think so. Open Google News. Note that there have been no new articles on the matter for several days. It completely fails WP:PERSISTENCE, even only a few days after it happened. One big news spike of AP articles does not make something significant, as our event notability guidelines state. Try back in 100 years. Why would someone, 100 years in the future, care about a routine crime that pales in comparison to everything else that is happening in the world at this moment? RGloucester  — ☎ 04:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems to still be in the headlines, and the police are looking for the suspected shooter. For example, take this CNN story from earlier today:  Everymorning   talk  15:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep for now Considering the manhunt is still on for the shooter, anything can happen. Until we get an important update on the story, just keep this for now in case of that. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong delete – I wish some editors would read our event notability guidelines. In fact, given that Mr Mitchell mentioned The New York Times, I can report that this story only appeared on page A18, which is indicative of its lack of significance. First of all, WP:GEOSCOPE applies. It says that "notable events" usually have a wide impact across a wide region. This event has not had such an impact. Our event notability guidelines also require that an event have WP:DEPTH of coverage, and not just be covered in passing. One small article on page A18 of The New York Times indicates that there was no depth of coverage, even on the day after the event. Our event guidelines also require that an event have WP:LASTING effects. This event has no historical significance. It is a one-off run-of-the-mill crime. These events are quite frequent. People must remember that we are WP:NOTNEWS, and not a police blotter either. The event guidelines require diversity of coverage as well, in WP:DIVERSE. It says "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted". Clearly we do not have this diversity here, and as it says, wire reports do not show diversity of coverage. Also note WP:PERSISTENCE, which requires that "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle". Of course, this "news cycle" has already passed, as this event has fallen out of the news, and never was of top importance in the world. Overall, this article fails all of our event notability criteria, and must be deleted. The above editor says we should "keep it just for now", but this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The event has not fallen out of the news yet. As I type this comment it's still the 2nd story on CNN and 2nd story on google news. Byates5637 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Everytime a major mass shooting like this happens and someone writes an article about it it gets put up for deletion. Why shouldn't this stay? It's one of the biggest mass shootings of the year so far and a major news event. This story has literally been everywhere all day. And we can say all we want that "Wikipedia isn't the news" but in reality it pretty much is. If you want to delete this one then delete every wikipedia page about a mass shooting or homicide if it's "just news". This was a major news story. Benbuff91 14:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A "major news event" that has "literally been everywhere"? Where? I don't see this on BBC front page. Do you? You know what I see on the front page? I see the killing of 132 children in Pakistan. I'm sorry if you don't like Wikipedia policy, but WP:NOTNEWS is one of our policies. Whether something is a "news event" irrelevant to whether we have an article on it. It must have WP:LASTING significance, WP:÷PERSISTENT coverage, and must appear in a WP:DIVERSE variety of sources in WP:DEPTH, not just as a wire piece. This does not. Even the major American newspaper, The New York Times, did not see it fit to put this story anywhere near the front page. It put it all the way back on page A18. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You know your tone doesn't help at all. It was all over MSNBC, CNN, USA Today, ABC News all day yesterday. And the shooter was just found dead so the story is going to continue to get coverage. And just because it wasn't on the BBC page doesn't mean it wasn't getting extensive coverage. Benbuff91 14:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what happened yesterday. See 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 encyclopaedia article". Yes, it does matter whether it appears on the BBC, per WP:DIVERSE. It appearing on the front page of 24 hours news websites in the US does not imply diverse coverage, because each of the articles says the same thing. As the guideline says "Similarly, where a single story or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information on repeating news coverage from elsewhere (for example, "AP reported that ..."), this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability". There is no WP:DEPTH of analysis, no WP:DIVERSE coverage, no WP:PERSISTENCE, nor anything else. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's pretty funny because you see I looked up this story on BBC and there are three different articles about it, and I'm sure another one will crop up soon about the death of the perp: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30484534 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30502731 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30489801. So you're wrong that the BBC never reported on it. And yes I'm not going to argue that the even is as notible as what happened in Sydney or Pakistan, but just because one event isn't as notible as another doesn't mean it's not notible. Benbuff91 14:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that "the BBC never reported it". I said that it never appeared on the front page. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.bbc.com/ It's there right now, front page, about the report on finding his body, right under news. Benbuff91 15:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not on the UK edition front, only on the American edition front. Regardless, it is a tiny mention, not in the top stories section. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * File this exchange under "moving the goalposts". At least it was funny. Everyking (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. It isn't anyone's fault that the BBC is constantly updating their twenty-four hour news website, switching stories around on different versions of the page. As you are part of the corruption, here, I fear it isn't worth engaging with you. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for intruding, but I need to make these points clear. Benbuff91, the fact that you're the one who created this article and seem to be the one most actively against the deletion of this article (exactly like you did with the 2014 Spring, Texas shooting, which you also created) doesn't really help your arguments that much. RGloucester, the fact that you seem to be the one most actively supporting the deletion of this article (which seems to be evidenced by, in my opinion, the rather pushy comments you make towards the votes of other users) doesn't help you either. The fact that the both of you are engaged in this conversation right now doesn't help either of you. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - The event is a national news story covered in a wide variety of major news outlets. The story is still developing. For now it should absolutely be here. Some time after the incident ends it may be worth reassessing the lasting impact of this event in regards to it's notability. But at the time it's too early to make a judgement on that. Byates5637 (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep - This topic shouldn't have been on the front page, but the developments about the suspect make the event more prominent than the event should have been (not). PTSD is a serious disorder among military veterans, including the suspect. Alas, the topic became front page news nationwide just to isolate the citizens from more awful events, like the Russian-Ukraine conflict or the Pakistani school attack. But there is nothing any rule can do to prevent the creation of this article. *sigh* --George Ho (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't front page news on the country's newspaper of record. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep shooting sprees like this over a wide area are rare and there will be enough interest to merit a good comprehensive article. As soon as this fell out of breaking news the place I would go to look for it would be wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "There will be" = WP:CRYSTAL. It doesn't matter where you'd look for it. You shouldn't be looking here. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "You shouldn't be looking here"? Hah! I have to hand it to you.  Your throw-the-objections-against-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks strategy is highly entertaining.  Shame you can't have us all walled up like the Princes in the Tower. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Look! A wayward philistine! To the conservatory, with you! If you will not accept perfection, perfection will be imposed on you. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not finding some of the arguments particularly convincing; the reason this shooting got overlooked was probably down to the fact that the incidents in Sidney and Pakistan were far bigger and involved a terrorist, whilst this was one lone PTSD victim going on a rampage. Personally, I'm of the viewpoint that this sort of page should be allowed to stay initially; if the news coverage totally disappears after a few months, then it can go. It's too soon to argue there is no lasting notability... but then, it can equally be said that it is too soon for there to be evidence that it will stay notable. The argument that it never made the BBC front page is incorrect - it's there right now with this story, and I trout the nominator for not actually looking before they made their AfD statement . Comparisons to Columbine are not helpful either; that was a high school massacre by two students, not one lone PTSD-sufferer whose illness took over. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the BBC page displays different stuff depending on where one's IP locates to. Also, at the time he made the nomination, no such story appeared. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If that is indeed the case, then I apologize for being incorrect myself there - I stand by my comments about how comparing this to Columbine is unhelpful, and the rest of the statement, but will strike and tweak the wording of my initial comment as appropriate. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt BBC is serving up custom pages to people based on their geographic area. Anyway I'm based out of Portland area which is about as far away from Philly as you can get, and this story is currently the front page feature on BBC. Byates5637 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. I'm from Edinburgh, so when I open the page, Edinburgh news pops up. If one is from London, one gets London news. There is a separate American edition. I live in America for the time being, sadly, but I have access to both pages, though. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: This is considered one of the major news story today (featured in CNN and NY Times, for example). Sure it’s more of a local thing, but it doesn't hurt to keep it for historic purposes. ''After all, Wikipedia is all about keeping information about everything and anything, and this is definitely important. '' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.245.50.50 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Large-scale massacre...whatever the reason for its occurrence, it warrants an article.  Front-page news it may not have been, but it's certainly been at the top of the news feed all day today.  (For what it's worth, I live outside of the Philly area, and this has been the second story on local radio all day today, behind only the massacre in Pakistan.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. If there is an article about hostage crisis in which a few people died, why delete article about situation which claimed twice deaths? If you read wiki carefully, u can notice killing sprees in far more local, forgotten by mainstream media areas. I haven't noticed big media attention about capsized ferry on Tanganika which claimed at least 129 lives. Is it also a reason to delete any future article about it?--178.43.0.243 (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Another mass shooting.  Sad, but notable.   Montanabw (talk)  05:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep news on this reported on BBC News homepage for several days (it's still there) and a serious mass shooting. Plenty of precedents for this kind of thing, no genuinely convincing reason to delete. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete WP:Event is pretty clear that a crime such as this needs to have some societal impact other than grief and horror. We cannot determine that YET.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  Our purpose is not to cover events as they happen, but to discuss historically meaningful events in perspective. There is no way we can do that now.  To the IP posting above, where did you get the idea that was Wikipedia's purpose?  To the IP that mentioned that there was an article (not defined BTW) that discussed a hostage situation with less deaths, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument.  To the numerous people that are here and are always here as I am at AfD's like this, if you have a problem with the policies that cover notability for events like these, why don't you take your perpetual arguments to the policy page and attempt to change it, rather than waste other editor's time having to argue this over and over at AfD's.  Cause even if this gets kept now, which admittedly has been the recent trend, it will undoubtedly get renominated in a few years.  I really fail to understand why people don't get that just because we hear about everything that happens nowadays, that somehow makes it important.  Some guy popped a nut and killed everyone in sight.  Other than to the people who were directly affected, it has no meaning.  The case may have some merit to be discussed in the article on PTSD at some point in time in the future when we have had time to understand what it means, but for Pete's sake, killing has gone on ever since we had more people than Adam and Eve (literally..the first murders were in the second generation of people if you accept the Bible as history).  Quantity of death ≠ significance. John from Idegon (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This other 2014 familicide doesn't have an article and had seven fatalities. "Don Spirit Wikipedia" is also a search term. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously, due to substantial press coverage. Why do people nominate articles on events that are plainly notable? What a waste of time for everyone. Everyking (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Press coverage" does not equal notability, that's why. Why do people persist in this fallacy? Why do they not read our policies and guidelines, such as WP:EVENT? Why do people allow sensationalist and lowbrow articles such as this to corrupt the encylopaedia? RGloucester  — ☎ 04:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Sensationalist and lowbrow articles"? "Corrupting the encyclopedia"? Is this some kind of performance art you're doing here? Everyking (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you persist in this charade, I suppose you are more suited to the late News of the World than you are to Wikipedia. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The cause is lost, but the insults keep flying? For an idea of what RG thinks is notable, see his creation Tambourhinoceros. μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha! Bring up something from 2011? However, you failed in one respect, which is to note that the criteria for notability of organisations are different from those for events. Regardless, the notability of that organisation has nothing to do with the notability of this shooting, so I don't know why you're playing the phone hacking game. Perhaps my mention of the News of the World was not too far off. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For someone so obsessed with the "professionalism" of Wikipedia your attitude doesn't reflect what you apparently stand for. Nor do I see how an article like this is sensationalist or lowbrow. You're really grasping at straws to argue with people at this point. Benbuff91 04:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC).
 * I don't think I've ever used the word "professionalism" throughout my whole time in this God-forsaken Wikipedia, as I have a great contempt for that word. It is "sensationalist" and "lowbrow" because this article is about a crime that is of no interest in a historical sense. This article only exists as a compilation of news coverage so that people can gawk over crimes that have nothing to do with them, or with history. It is antithetical to the encyclopaedia, and I'm sure you shan't see the Britannica writing an article on it. This article fosters a parochialism that gives WP:UNDUE weight to minor crimes in small parts of the world, which does not consider their weight in relation to crimes and events elsewhere. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Arguing is not going to help anyone's arguments. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. This article fails WP:EVENT. Hell, I wrote and got consensus for WP:EVENT specifically for incidents like this. It was designed in large part to solidify the idea that local events, especially ones that have no enduring notability, should not have their own article. The Wordsmith Talk to me 01:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - article passes WP:GNG and EVENT. plenty of reliable sources. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Notable spree shooting with national media coverage. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep; article passes the notability guidelines. Major news event. APerson (talk!) 02:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - A notable event, well covered and well documented. Mass murder is notable by its very nature. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:EVENT. An encyclopedia is not a newspaper. Shooting sprees are regrettably common, and naturally cause a short-term flurry of press coverage, but unless they can be shown to have some long-term significance they don't belong here. JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2014 (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.