Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2019 Philadelphia shooting

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 redirect to

WP:IAR. Finally, the merge case is that this appears to be a simple police operation that went awry and should thus be discussed on the page of the police force involved, Philadelphia Police Department
. Going by headcount there is 5+2 (the deletion nomination plus Inter&anthro's post) delete, 1+1+1 merge (I am counting "or" voters double, +1 is Blaylockjam10's conditional merge argument and the other +1) and 7+1 (+1 is Blaylockjam10's conditional keep argument) keep arguments. I've ignored one sockpuppet and am inclined to consider Blaylockjam10's stance as a merge given that nobody has posted evidence of new gun legislation yet.

On balance, it seems like the discussion is more supportive of getting rid of the article, as the "get rid of it" side is slightly prevailing by headcount and more importantly their arguments about there being no indication of notability is well taken, while most of the keep arguments are mere "significant coverage exists" with little explanation of how this establishes notability (not all coverage makes a topic notable; the claim of international coverage comes closest but as noted by

WP:GEOSCOPE
it does not automatically imply notability) and some claims of inherent notability that aren't grounded in any policy or guideline.

That leaves the question of how to get rid of the article. The delete camp has for the most part not contested any merge argument, but these are in the numerical minority and some of the merge proponents' arguments appear to be compatible with deletion. I don't particularly like this option has nobody has explicitly suggested it and it thus has a little supervote-ish character, but actually redirecting seems like the best way to satisfy both the "get rid of the article" stance while also leaving the possibility for useful content to be transported over to the police force article. Thus, redirect it is - contestations can be brought at the usual venues like deletion review, my talk page and

WP:RFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

August 2019 Philadelphia shooting

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

August 2019 Philadelphia shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to have been created in a bit of a rush. As of right now I have serious doubts it passes

WP:10YT. - Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I feel that both the article, and this nomination, are too soon to establish if the subject is notable enough for an article here on Wikipedia. The incident ended less than 24 hours ago, and there is still are some reports and information coming out. Yet to be seen what the impact will be. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this article is retained, I suggest the title should be changed to 2019 Philadelphia shootout. The volume of gunfire produced by civilian firearms in urban settings is only half of the story. This situation, like the 2015 San Bernardino attack produced a heavy volume of police gunfire. In both situations the percentage of hits per shot fired apparently favored the civilians, although police investigations and press releases have a disincentive to attribute damage to police gunfire. Since every bullet fired hits something, it might be valuable to cover situations encouraging assessment of whether police weapons and procedures adequately consider the probability of collateral damage from over-penetration and ricochets in urban settings. Thewellman (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP – Significant event; significant coverage. It irks me that every time a new article is created, someone (both inevitably and immediately) calls for its deletion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm getting tired of people rushing to create articles about in progress events when it's not at all clear they will meet our guidelines for encyclopedic notability. I'm guessing you did not bother to read any of the linked guidelines I posted. Significant coverage is not the only criteria for determining the notability of events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic relevance is not a particularly high standard, especially with regards to an event of national and international significance. Additionally, this incident hits all the marks of an article that shouldn't be deleted: it's presented neutrally; it's readily verifiable, per every major news organization in the United States; it contains no speculation or unfounded hypotheses; and it's encyclopedic.
talk) 05:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Significant coverage is not the only criteria for determining notability of events. If this is the best that can be mustered in response to the linked PAG in my nom then I am becoming increasingly convinced that this page does not pass WP:EVENT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a merge would be an acceptable alternative to deletion and the Philly PD is a good target article. Maybe a paragraph or two at the most. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Philadelphia_Police_Department#Notable_events. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge No need for this shooting to have it's own article...especially since all police officers received minor injuries and were released from the hospital Wednesday night while the standoff was still ongoing. Deathscape (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now It sounds like this may lead to new gun legislation in Pennsylvania. If that happens, I think this article would meet WP:LASTING. If it doesn't lead to new legislation, merge to the "Notable events" section of the Philadelphia Police Department article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1)
WP:CRYSTAL; 2) if it does lead to new gun legislation in Philadelphia, and if that legislation is notable, this would be a worthy bit to include in an article on that legislation, to help explain its origin. But that doesn't support it having its own article. TJRC (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Once again, significant coverage is not the sole criteria for WP:EVENTs. I feel like I'm banging my head on a brick wall here. Please review the policies and guidelines in the nominating statement and address them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your position appears to be inconsistent with our
policies and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
They can always claim
WP:IAR Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
True. IAR is one of those things that I have always believed should be safe, legal... and rare. IAR is a bit like what is sometimes called an "affirmative defense." In effect you are conceding that PAG is against you, but you are saying we should make an exception owing to some special circumstance. If you are making an IAR argument you should state as much clearly, and why you think an exception to our customary PAG is called for. In this case the argument appears to be less an appeal for a one off exception and more that we should chuck our guidelines entirely where the subject is American mass shootings. I don't see a convincing IAR argument for a limited one time exception given the pedestrian nature of the subject, much less the suggestion that we should elevate American gun violence above our notability guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: An article devoted specifically to a single mass shooting, properly sourced, is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found automatic notability for mass shootings anywhere in our guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin This would appear to be a discussion where
    WP:PAG cited by both sides in their arguments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2019 (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/August_2019_Philadelphia_shooting&oldid=1110481930"