Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Charles Vacca


 * 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   no consensus. People disagree about whether this is an incident with long-lasting impact. I guess we'll have to wait and see...  Sandstein  16:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Charles Vacca

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Absolutely failure of WP:NOT and WP:NEVENT, particularly as it was an accident in an otherwise controlled environment. Non-notable persons involved. It perhaps might be a point in the discussion about gun control and children, but we should not have a topic about it. M ASEM (t) 20:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  20:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  20:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go with userfy/draftify on this one, in the off chance it leads to some major legislative or culture change (which I'd doubt). Ansh666 21:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify: seems like borderline on WP:NEVENT, a classic "wait and see" type of current-event article. Wouldn't mind a keep, either. Ansh666 01:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd go with keep on this one or at least merge into another article, the news on this topic has been reported outside of the USA (it has received news coverage on radio and television where I am from in England) and has provoked a number of discussions into gun legislation in the US. It may need a level of expansion and or rewording but I believe the basis for the article itself is sound and should be kept unless a suitable article to merge it into is found. Tracland (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Breadth (as in, international coverage) is not sufficient for notability. This is strictly an accident death of one person by a child even while supervised. The event might spark discussion but the only cover we can give is news, and that's what Wikinews is for. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, that's what this article presently givens is newspaper-style reporting. --M ASEM (t) 01:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep since coverage has continued for days with little sign of slowing down. --Jakob (talk)  23:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above & Mainly Jacob - Coverage has gone on for quite some time and as far as I'm aware something of this nature rarely happens. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  00:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously this is NEWS - the two previous entries by Jakob & Davey cite coverage as a reason to keep this. Coverage is about news, and not about knowledge.  Until this has a notable effect the only thing noteworthy about it is the sensational tragedy it covers.  Unless of course Wikipedia is going to start capturing everything sensational, in which case it should change it's name to Wikitabloidia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrellk (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - quite clearly per WP:NOT and WP:NEVENT until this event  has an  impact  on  society and/or legislation, it  is as stated, an industrial  accident -  or are we to  start  creating  articles on  every fatal fall  from  a scaffolding on  a construction  site? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not, if there's significant coverage in reliable sources and it triggers debate about construction site safety or something? --Jakob (talk)  15:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a key indicator of notability is whether it triggers discussion or acts as a catalyst. For example, Articles_for_deletion/Meleanie_Hain was deleted because, despite the sourcing, there was nothing especially standout about this incident. Upjav (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But we also should recognize, this was basically something being stupid and not following the rules (letting a child under the posted age to fire at an otherwise controlled environment). It's an accidental shooting incident. Unless for some reason the child is going to put on trial for murder, or a federal law gets put into place that bans gun use by all children under a certain age, this is has the same impact as a car accident that ends in the death of someone. There's not even a reasonable place to merge this. --M ASEM (t) 15:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're thinking it's too soon? Also, according to the page, there is no minimum age for firing at a range ("At the time, the nine-year-old girl receiving instruction was legal, because Arizona does not have a law prohibiting people under a certain age from firing a weapon"), so it could be the precedent for age restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upjav (talk • contribs) 15:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The articles I've read said that the range had a recommended age limit, not the law. --M ASEM (t) 16:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Straying from the point, but IIRC the recommended age was 8 (!), she was 9. Ansh666 18:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's my opinion that notability is a more relevant criterion for inclusion that significance (and indeed, notability is noted in the policy pages to be different from significance or importance). This in clearly notable under the GNG. If the tree in my front yard makes national news (for whatever reason), then it's notable as far as I'm concerned. By the way, the article at hand isn't a WP:109PAPERS issue either, because the articles aren't all near-reprints of each other. --Jakob (talk)  15:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on enduring (read, longer-term) coverage, not just breadth of coverage, and that has not been demonstrated yet. It was all over the news when it happened, making it a blip, but as I'm judging by google news hits, the coverage is already dying out, which makes the enduring aspect questionable. That's why NEVENT says one should wait to make these types of articles where the enduring notability is not obvious, and why we have Wikinews where editors interested in current events can contribute and eventually move content into Wikipedia should the event turn notable. --M ASEM (t) 16:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's now another spurt of news coverage. How much do you want? Single stories that remain in the news this long are not common. --Jakob (talk)  18:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep in some form. I don't know if this needs its own page, but it should be on Wikipedia somewhere, though I don't know of a good article to merge it with. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a merge if someone cites a good article to merge to. Upjav (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that basically WP:Other stuff exists? (Or, other stuff doesn't exist, you know what I mean.) Ansh666 02:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or possibly merge - extended news coverage makes this notable. The discussion this has prompted a significant national discussion outside of the typical range (no pun intended) of gun right debates, as this was on a designated shooting range - tell me if I'm missing a similar incident. Upjav (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete has no long-lasting impact, just another gun death in America. People are shot to death in the US very frequently, why we need to record the abject stupidity of putting an automatic 9mm Uzi in the hands of a nine-year-old for posterity I know not.  I'm certain the girl in question will be thrilled to grow up knowing that the abject stupidity has been recorded for ever, and I'm sure that the existence of the article is nothing more than tabloidism.  What purpose is it serving?  It's a classic example of NOT NEWS.  Should gun laws be modified as a result of this accident, then we can think again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NOT and WP:NEVENT.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources. Notability is obvious. Everyking (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But it fails WP:NOT. Notability's not the issue here. --M ASEM (t) 02:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How? I presume you are saying it falls under this: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." But this article is structured to be about an event, not an individual, so this seems perfectly fine. Everyking (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the event's not notable. Nothing has happened with this story outside of the human interest ("oh, that poor little girl!"). I've not seen any significant push for new gun control laws (as there was after the various shootings in 2013). There's no enduring coverage of the event from an encyclopedia manner. It's broadly covered, because the sensationalism of a young girl shooting an instructor with an Uzi (albeit under otherwise controlled conditions) is headline grabbing, but there's no legs to this story and in a few months looks like it will be forgotten. --M ASEM (t) 22:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely this is beyond "routine news coverage"? The news coverage of the event has been quite substantial, after all. Under what circumstances would you say the event is notable? Everyking (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If there was going to be some fundamental change in legislation about gun controls or regulation of gun ranges, or such, that might make this notable (though likely, if that was the case, we'd have an article about the legislation and not the event, akin to AMBER Alert). But when you read through the stories, there's basically all primary reporting from a half-dozen local sources (such as the timeline of events from the family's POV), there's very little evaluation of this event from sources. For all purposes, this story is : someone accidentally got shot by a child holding a gun with no malicious intent. That's not an encyclopedic topic. --M ASEM (t) 23:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you take a too-strict stance on what should be included. It seems that you're missing the difference between something sounding notable and something actually being notable. The way you described this event makes it seem like you think it doesn't sound notable. And that's a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue. Actual coverage, on the other hand, regardless of how trivial this event may seem, does exist, and that is what we should be concentrating on. --Jakob (talk)  00:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing that this is not notable from a WP:NOT standpoint. This is for all purposes a routine story, considering that people in the United States are accidentally hurt by guns every day (per, ~2 people a day were killed by accidental gun discharges in 2011). The only reason this story has any type of legs is that we have a young, Caucasian girl as the accidental shooter, which is unfortunately a prime candidate for media bias (something we need to recognize). --M ASEM (t) 00:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference between this and tens of thousands of other gun accidents is that this one got covered in international news. For a week. If something receives significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, who are we to say that it is insignificant/not notable? We cover what reliable sources cover, however trivial a topic may sound at first glance. --Jakob (talk)  00:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Because of the media bias, that's why it got covered. We cannot be blind to the unfortunate fact that the press is not blind to race or gender. Speculation, but if the same events happened but everyone involved was male, or African-American, the papers would have passed over it beyond the local coverage. We have to be aware that the media has a systematic bias like this. --M ASEM (t) 00:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Systemic bias is a non-issue. The entire pool of available human knowledge is biased. For instance, a minute creek in a place like the US or England may have multiple studies on it, while a similar-sized creek deep in the Amazon Rainforest may have no coverage at all except for maps and possibly database listings. Would you support deleting small creeks in the US and England under this rationale? --Jakob (talk)  00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Systematic bias is an issue we have to be aware of. The reason the creek in the US would get covered compared to one in the Amazon is that part of what WP is is a gazetteer, and so consensus has decided that every named geographic feature should have an article; so the one in the US will likely be named, while the one in the Amazon has not yet but as soon as it has been, it would be added.  On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we don't cover routine news, which this effectively is. There is a reason we have Wikinews for people that rather work on current events, even with the provision that should the events turn notable, we can bring that into WP. --M ASEM  (t) 01:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are defining what is notable based on what it is&mdash;whether you think it should be notable, basically&mdash;rather than the attention it has received. But notability can only be conferred by attention from human beings. If people treat this as notable, then it is notable. Ultimately the thing itself is irrelevant; all that really matters is whether the world cares about it. How do we define "routine"? If something receives a massive level of attention, even internationally, can it still be considered routine? I don't see how. On the NOTNEWS page, it gives examples of some mundane things that attract the attention of very few people. How is this comparable? Everyking (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For events, we are specifically looking for enduring coverage, not volume of coverage (notability is not related to importance or fame or popularity). This story has no enduring coverage, and add in that people are shot and killed accidentally with guns every day and get zero coverage, shows that a combination of factors makes this very much a NOTNEWS failure and should be removed. --M ASEM (t) 02:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not so much in this case, though I understand the point. If these other shootings were reported regularly at, say, a national level, but we opted not to include those, then trying to argue the same here could be pushing "other stuff doesn't exist". But we're talking that these other shootings get no attention at the national level, and since we try to reflect sources, we'd not even be able to have articles on these shootings. --M ASEM (t) 02:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, is it fair to call this "no consensus" and then renominate it later? Upjav (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem, I don't understand your argument. Legislation does not need to be passed to confer notability (of course), and this story has received a great deal more than routine coverage. It seems like your argument is "it's just a shooting, and shootings happen all the time". But surely not all shootings are alike? Can a shooting that appears only in local news, for example, be compared with this? Everyking (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Many local shooters involve the death of the person shot accidentally, but they don't get any farther coverage than local. There is zero sign this is going to be anything that will fundamentally change society to some degree, and all signs point to the fact that in a few weeks, no one will remember this. That is a news report which should be documented at Wikinews, but not in an encyclopedia that is only to summarize enduring topics. --M ASEM  (t) 03:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Fundamentally change society"? That's your standard for inclusion? Well, it's not a news report; it's an encyclopedia article about a notable topic, something that society has deemed important. Everyking (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a news report. It's all sourced to primary newspaper/news site sources with no secondary sources. That shows that's there's little expected impact of this event on the rest of the world. This goes to WIkinews, not en.wiki.  --M ASEM  (t) 04:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question. Earlier you said legislation needed to be passed, or that society needed to be "fundamentally changed" by the event. Now you just say more sources are needed. Can you please precisely identify what kind of source you would accept as demonstrating notability? Everyking (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Without anyone notable involved in this event, it would have to be a source that talks about how this shooting would be influencing gun safety regulations at a larger scale (not just at that range, but at a national level), or adding legislation about that, or something else that aims to avoid a repeat of this incident outside of the local area. Again, consider the AMBER Alert; children are kidnapped and lost every day (and we don't have articles on every one of them), but her kidnapping specifically sparked the creation of the AMBER Alert system to prevent or stop future kidnappings. These types of actions are in response to the event, showing enduring notability of the event and would be secondary sources (eg articles saying that these plans were designed based on the event itself, as to make them secondary). But given that everything about this was an accident likely means you aren't going to see that, and thus deletion is appropriate. Now if it turns out a year later national legislation finally comes about, say something named "Vacca's Law" which involves limiting gun access to children or along those lines, then we might need to reconsider this article (but again, consider that we don't have an article on the actual kidnapping that led to AMBER Alert, but the crime is described in that article, we'd likely do the same here).
 * At the end of the day, this story is sensational news - it has all the right buttons that newspapers - which are in the business of selling news - love; a gun accident, a young girl, someone mortally shot. It's a eye-drawing headline. But that's all it is. There's no encyclopedic meat to this story at this time, and the story is already dropping out of newswire services, so there's no enduring coverage either. --M ASEM (t) 14:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't subscribe to your view that things need to have legislative consequences to be notable. If I were to produce a source in a week or a month that was still discussing this shooting, would that not satisfy your demand for "enduring coverage"? Surely if people were still talking about it in a month, that would be "enduring"? Everyking (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One source would not be sufficient. I can't say what the number of sources would need to be but it would have to be more than just primary sourcing after (at this point) 2 weeks since the incident. I'm sure there will be a story when Vacca is released from the hospital, but that's a natural conclusion of the story.  And note I'm not saying there needs to be legislation but there needs to be more than just reporting of the events. I see nothing that suggests that people are going to change or try to change the situation to prevent this from happening again beyond changes at the specific range. (as noted, no law was broken, and while the range had a recommended age of 10, it wasn't strict). It was an accident, end of story. That's not encyclopdic-worthy. --M ASEM  (t) 15:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, one thing to add: how many people did this event directly affect? Obviously the girl and her family, Vacca and his family, and the management of the shooting range. A dozen or so people. Compared to the 7 billion people in the world. It is far far far too limited in scope to be an encyclopedic topic since we are not a collection of indiscriminate information. --M ASEM (t) 15:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure most of these are secondary sources. The New York Times can't be doing firsthand reporting on what's happening in Arizona. It's encyclopedic because it was covered by multiple sources, not because it's an important event itself. See also WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:BELONG, both of which your argument is based on. Also, just so you know, Vacca was killed in the accident (in reference to your comment "I'm sure there will be a story when Vacca is released from the hospital"). --Jakob (talk)  15:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources require transformation of content (such as analysis, synthesis, criticism), not just re-iteration of content. Most non-op-ed pieces in major newspapers are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. --M ASEM (t) 15:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added a section about the potential legislative impact of this shooting to the article, but as this impact is still very slight I'm not sure if it is enough to meet the criteria set out by User:Masem. Masem, would you say this is enough of a legislative impact? Jinkinson   talk to me  20:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's in the direction but I don't feel it still justifies the article. I do not know where it might be but there feels that there should be a larger topic about "guns and children in the United States" (maybe not to that specific level) that this would be a shorter section in.--M ASEM (t) 20:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's quite apparent that it's being analyzed, though, and by politicians as well as the media. @Jinkinson: Nice work adding that section in. --Jakob (talk)  20:43, 5 September 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.