Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornton, Colorado shooting


 * 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thornton, Colorado shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a run-of-the-mill shooting. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  05:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Random killing of multiple un-involved individuals at a Wallwart is not run of the mill. The event has received wide international coverage - meeting WP:SIGCOV. What isn't clear at this point, due to the event being recent (5 days old), is whether the coverage will be persistent and lasting. Per WP:RAPID, we should not delete the article at this time.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - not run of the mill. Coverage has been persistent since. And lasting coverage are to soon to evaluate. Also are lasting effects.BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing ROUTINE about it.  Meets WP:SIGCOV. Rushing this to AfD flies in the face of WP:PRESERVE and WP:RAPID.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think there's nothing run of the mill with it, especially as there's been reports about it in international press (Spain, Argentina), so it doesn't have low notability either.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - article needs some cleanup and expansion but as the other !votes above state the subject of the article has received enough indebt coverage to pass WP:GNG. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Probably is not notable and the article should not have been created at this time but the latter half of WP:RAPID trumps all when the AFD is created a few days after the incident. Persistence in coverage, indepth analysis, and a lasting impact cannot be evaluated; in other words, they do not exist. Sorry but it is best to come back when (only the latter half of) RAPID cannot be applied anymore.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of ongoing coverage both national and international. Patapsco913 (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2017 (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.