Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cardamon/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Keep -- Jreferee (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Cardamon/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting


This is an article which was deleted as a result of Articles for deletion/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting. It was userfied on request on 23 May 2013‎, and has not been edited since, apart from one minor edit on 24 May, which did little more than tweak the wording of a few sentences. It clearly falls under WP:STALEDRAFT. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to being both busy on other things and lazy, I had an actual plan for improving this userfied article. I was waiting for more news stories to be written about the aftermath of the shootings, to see if they would increase the notability of the event. I have now started to look through the last five months of articles on the shootings in order to find out whether I was correct.  I also made some edits to the article. Cardamon (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I have added some new material, and WP:STALEDRAFT does not apply any more. Also, I have found a few more references, not yet added to the article, that may help answer some of the objections that were raised in the AFD. Cardamon (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep and I can't f-ing believe that this didn't pass an AfD. This may be one for deletion review, in fact. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The AfD filing was 5 months ago, not to mention that "I disagree" is never a valid reason to file an AfD. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - One local blurb last week about a neighborhood watch group forming in the wake of the incident is not really up to the standards of WP:EVENT. Standard news coverage, routine incident, no lasting impact or anything.  That you're working on it is probably enough to stave off an MfD, but nothing added so far overcomes the reasons why it was deleted in the first place.  Honestly, put up a  tag and call it a day. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm considering whether this is usable. Cardamon (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I know this debate isn't about the notability of the subject per-se, and this really isn't even a very strong argument to keep even if it were, but doesn't anyone else think it's kind of ridiculous that an event like this might fall into the non-notable category, while any athlete that played even one game in a professional league with no coverage outside of a statistics book is automatically notable? Gigs (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While GNG and subject-specific notability guidelines do conflict, I have seen articles on athletes deleted who technically pass the latter but certainly don't meet GNG. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That occurrence is unfortunately more rare than it should be, IMO. Gigs (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We're making progress, though. WP:PORNBIO is some seriously low-hanging fruit that historically let a lot of fluff coast by, just because some "actress" got nominated for being in a 30-person sex scene in 1997.  There have been several deletion discussions of late that have set aside pornbio and deleted the article anyways, despite meeting the technical letter of the guide. Tarc (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That was a contentious AfD. True, the article is build upon quite a burst of short term news coverage.  Recently, this userspace page has been updated with a few near-trivial mentions in recent sources.  Given that others here contest the correctness of the deletion, and there was strong minority opinion in the AfD, I support this page being moved to mainspace, exempted from WP:CSD#G4 and subjected to a fresh AfD discussion.  I suspect that it will be deleted unless a serious, reputable secondary source with significant coverage from a historical perspective is found.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do see some scattered scholarly sociological coverage related to the history of violence and "second line" parades in New Orleans, though none specifically mentioning this as of yet. It is somewhat speculative but that does seem to indicate that this is an event that is part of an ongoing phenomenon that will very likely attract historical coverage in the future.  Still not a super strong argument, but since this article can satisfy the GNG easily, I don't think we should require too high a bar to satisfy WP:EFFECT, especially since that guideline warns that recent events might have not attracted enduring coverage yet, even though they likely will.  If this goes to AfD again, I give permission for any editor to transplant this comment to the new AfD with my signature, or notify me and I will do so. Gigs (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You could add the second AFD for this to your watchlist in advance, so that you will be notified when it happens. Cardamon (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, once the page is significantly better than the deleted version, I will move it to main space, and someone can AFD it if they really want to. Here are three of the reasons why there will be additional sources: i) If I counted correctly, Google news currently shows seven news articles on this in the last three weeks (not counting the Huffington post and various news-like websites) Search in News for "New Orleans" "mother's day" shooting.  So coverage of this five months old event is  continuing. ii) There are some sources from the intervening five months, at least two of which I intend to add to the article. iii) There are six people in jail, whose trials are yet to happen.
 * However, asking for a source with a historical perspective on something that happened five months ago is setting the bar quite high. Cardamon (talk) 19:24, 29 October 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.