Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Although E.M.Gregory made substantial improvements to the article, there was no general agreement that this proved the topic met the criteria for inclusion, and the conversation started to get heated, which is usually a good time to kick the discussion into the long grass. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear example of

WP:NOTNEWS. Single news event without lasting coverage or notability. All of the citations are from the couple of months immediately following the event. Searching for lasting coverage, I found news articles from the day the suspect was convicted, and nothing since. CrispyGlover (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Nom's assertion about sources - "nothing since" - is flatly contradicted by the simplest
    WP:BEFORE search on any reasonable keywords, such as: "Edward Archer" + Philadelphia; "Jesse Hartnett" + Philadelphia; "Edward Archer" + "Islamic State. Here:[1], for example, is a gNews search on "Edward Archer" " convicted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I don't see what differentiates this from all the news events that are covered every single day. The link to

Wikipedia is not a newspaper is a useful one; it states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." I don't see any enduring notability here - there's a burst of coverage after it happens, like with all cop shootings, and a burst of coverage after the conviction - and that's it. Rockypedia (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Note that User:Rockypedia has been indefinitely blocked as a puppet master, and that Nom was one of his socks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Please
    Philadelphia Inquirer a paper that, after I had looked at several articles, told me that I had "exceeded my monthly limit" and would have to pay. So I switched to a news archive search. It is perfectly legitimate to cite articles using the URL in a news archive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment If you ran out of free stories for the month on one site solely to source this then moved to an archive site with the same source, you're doing it wrong. Articles require a diversity of sources, not just one publication following the story through a number of months, as the Inquirer has clearly (but yes, rightfully) done. This is no better than the "wire spamming" I described above and only shows local notability rather than anything that has sustained outside the Delaware Valley.
chatter) 03:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Sources 57 and 58 are from the same writer just writing for two publications that share a newsroom. 65 is just another bullet-point made by an NRA spokeswoman in her book to advance a certain agenda. And the vast majority of sources outside Philadelphia are just 'crime beat' stories which are hardly unique and parrot the local media with only appropriate drop-ins to point out things unfamiliar to readers outside of the Delaware Valley. It is pure wire-spamming.
chatter) 16:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Just to be clear, you are asserting, to take just one example, that the articles that ran in the
Wall Street Journal pretends to have put their own reporter on the story when they are merely copying a wire service story without copying the wire service? You may want to take a closer look at the sources. If you find actual evidence of wire-spamming, by all means remove it. But the notion that major newspapers behave in the manner you have accused them of behaving is absurd.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for pointing out the duplicate cites, I have deleted one. On your 2nd point, even if a fact provided by a partisan organization is cited to as part of an argument in a book by
Wall Street Journal, most of the 17 are signed articles reported by journalists working for the Journal. the assertion that coverage is local, is wire spamming, or fits NOTNEWS is simply invalid. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep Plenty of
WP:SIGCOV from scholarly sources example [3]--Shrike (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep - The WP:SIGCOV meets WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:GEOSCOPE with 2 years of regional, national and some international coverage indeed. User Shrike and user E.M.Gregory are right in their assertions.BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the story received the media coverage it got because the shooting was originally thought to be related to ISIS, yet no evidence of their involvement was ever proven. This is purely a mentally unstable individual who became radicalized in his head, and decided to shoot a cop. The shooting was politicized by others with their own agenda to push. Thankfully the officer didn't die, but that serves to make this even less notable. Today we have the luxury of hindsight to see that the event didn't deserve the broad media coverage it got. Overall, a routine occurrence, and I think that
    WP:NOTNEWS carries more weight here. TimTempleton (talk)

(cont) 18:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 21:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • He's been found guilty - we're just waiting for the sentencing. There is a fundamental difference of opinion which basically comes down to the question: is an event notable if it turns out to not have been as much of a big deal as the media once thought it was? I get the runaway bride comparison, but that was a rare event. A crazy man shooting a cop is sadly not rare, especially since he was just wounded. This reminds me of several similar past discussions about terrorism attacks where there were no fatalities, such as the
    2017 Yavneh attack. Deletion discussion: [[4]] That one was kept, but I voted delete there also, for the same reason. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • He may have been ruled competent to stand trial, but his violent action certainly doesn't suggest he was a normally functioning member of society. But that's irrelevant to this discussion. What's key is that if you take away the ISIS claims, which are generally accepted as being made up, this is a routine police shooting by an angry man. I feel that by voting this article as worthy of inclusion, we are in some way legitimizing the falsehood he tried to spread. Unfortunately, this is likely going to be a no consensus, which is the same as a keep. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 04:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you source your assertion that "the ISIS claims, which are generally accepted as being made up,", are "a falsehood". Multiple scholarly sources now on the page make clear that perp claimed to have attacked a police officer on behalf of ISIS, discussing it as an instance of a perp who was inspired by the idea of jihad, without actually being in contact with ISIS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Keep in mind that I knew nothing about this when I came to the deletion review. Everything I know is from reading legitimate sources. [[5]] "Authorities later said there was no evidence indicating that Archer had coordinated the attack with any terrorist organization, and he was never charged with terrorism-related counts." [[6]] "Comey said authorities had found nothing to suggest that confessed shooter Edward Archer was part of an organized terrorist cell or was planning any follow-up attack." TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. You are unaware of the definition of [[lone wolf (terrorism}]], carried out by individuals who have had no contact with radical or violent groups, but who pick up ideas from TV or websites. For the short course, you might want to take a look at Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism, a book that explores Archer's trajectory as a type.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with the term - seems very subjective to assign his random statements weight, when someone can say whatever they want, to get attention. Some people also act on voices in their heads they claim to hear. There's a lot written about schizophrenia also. I'm focusing more on his violent action being non-notable, not its purported inspiration. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Wikipedia is
    WP:NOTNEWS. The coverage in books is shallow and incidental; noting the mention by Dana Loesch as evidence of notability strikes me as odd; ultimately, a routine crime, with no long-term societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, standard NOTNEWS case. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer#Context using scholarly books and journal articles that had not previously been cited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • This is an inaccurate description of my source/expand.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the curious, several paragraphs at the end of this January 2018, open source
    2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer#Motivation of perpetrator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2016_shooting_of_Philadelphia_police_officer&oldid=1068819843"