Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Capitol shooting incident (2013) (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. May be reassessed at a later day. Mkdw talk 04:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

United States Capitol shooting incident (2013)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Two months have passed since this occurred; it's abundantly clear now that there was no lasting effect and that this was just a case of something only notable the day it happened. Beerest 2 talk 21:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - As much as I would like to see it gone, I think this AfD may be a bit early. There is still current news related to the shooting here, here, and here. - MrX 22:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 *  Keep or redirect  - Either keep, or redirect to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, October 2013 with history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Extremely high profile, notable incident. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT no lasting significance demonstrated in the article or even claimed.  LGA talk  edits   07:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge as not notable. Barely involves the Capitol.  Can be merged into another article.  Perhaps an article summarizing all these related events???—GoldRingChip 13:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – "Two [whole!] months have passed [without] lasting effect" is humorously circular reasoning, but saying that it's an event that's "only notable the day it happened" is empirically false: anyone can search the news for "Miriam Carey" and find continuous, in-depth coverage by diverse sources for virtually every single day up to the present. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect Like all such killings, litigation will go on for years to come and that will occasionally be reported upon. Of course, that is not what is meant by "lasting influence", which this unfortunate event in no way had. --Randykitty (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the articles linked to by SteveStrummer. There is coverage of this event months after the event has happened. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - per the fact that it is too early since the last AfD as the nominator should have known. It is still too early to say if this had any long going effects etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is still too early to say if this had any long going effects etc." Meaning: it's still too early to say whether this is going to become notable in future... --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No meaning that it is notable now for being a recent event which received alot of coverage as well. Lets wait and see if that is sustained. And please dont put words in my mouth.. thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't want to put words in your mouth, just give my interpretation of your argument. As I understand it, you are arguing that the event is notable at this moment, but if it doesn't continue to have coverage, it may not be notable any more at some point in the future. I have two comments on that, 1/ notability is not temporary and 2/ "continued coverage" is absolutely not the same thing as lasting effects. As far as I can see, your arguments fly into the face of policy. --Randykitty (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - at least for now, per WP:PERSISTENCE. Cavrdg (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, per SteveStrummer, BabbaQ, and Cavrdg. Coverage has been ongoing in the past few months, and the "this was the year that was" coverage has come up again.  We really won't have much perspective for another year. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 16 December 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.