Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakewood Church 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. Pretty much a WP:SNOW case, which is often the case for new events that are rapidly developing. Closing early as I don't see a likelihood that opinions will change and an AFD hanging over an article that is rapidly developing isn't beneficial to the reader or editors. Dennis Brown 2¢ 03:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lakewood Church shooting

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two victims; not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The location the shooting occurred at has already lead to significant secondary source coverage of the event, and it's not clear how many victims there are as the event only occurred an hour ago. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lakewood Church. This is too recent to show long-term notability, and can be adequately covered as a section of Lakewood Church. Keeping coverage in one place helps to avoid confusion and duplication of effort. I don't really have any reason that's not already covered, but looking at this again, I do think the article should be kept. Please consider this !vote to be retracted. Luke10.27 (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 23:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or Merge. The Guardian, NYT, ABC, and CNN are the ones that come close. So, otherwise, we can either Keep, or merge. If we get all reliable/secondary sources publishing about the event, we can keep it, or if we can't, we can merge and put info into a section per my reasoning. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article just got created, so let’s give it a little more time then later make up the decision to merge later. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The article was both created too soon and brought to AfD too soon. There is clearly coverage but we are in a poor position to judge notability, which is partly accorded with time, when this occurred hours ago. Bring it to AfD in a week's time if you still think it should be deleted. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the nominating editor
WP:CRYSTALBALL applies and every article should be evaluated for its individual merits, but if the consensus here turns out to be Keep, I hope the nominator will remember both these discussions before bringing such news items to AfD so soon in the future. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Christianity, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to
WP:PAGEDECIDE. There's no reason for a random news story that happened at this church to be split off to its own article instead of being covered in the article about the church itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
exclusively primary sources Thank you for clarifying that you don't know what a primary source is. You did this same thing at
WP:PAGEDECIDE is great for edge-cases where due weight is manageable, but not with this subject. random The event was not random, unless you have insider knowledge that the shooter flipped a coin or rolled dice before their shooting spree. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Locke Cole:
WP:PRIMARY
– For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.

WP:RSBREAKING
– All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution

"Called out for it" is a strange way to say that you and only you disagreed with me when I applied these P&G. Regarding "random crime", that's a common term to distinguish from domestic crime. Regarding WP:DUE, the answer to outsized importance within the article isn't to give it even more outsized importance in a separate article as if it were an event of historical interest. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the sources were of the "breaking news" variety, so again, not primary sources... You applied those
WP:DUE. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I say Keep for now. References are good. Coverage indicates notability at this point. BabbaQ (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. The article dedicated to this event was created too soon. If there's a lot of information that comes out about this incident in the next few days, I would Keep. But since it was created too soon and it seems like only 2 people were injured and the only death is the perpetrator, I recommend the article to merge to Lakewood Church. Dc55555 (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least for now. Maybe in a couple weeks if nothing really comes of it we could nominate it again but for now it seems it could be rather notable as it was a female shooter which is super rare in these cases. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we're getting into
WP:SNOW territory. Despite quite high participation for a new AfD, no real argument for deletion has been advanced except the nominating editor's. A merge/redirect can be discussed on the relevant talk page in the coming days as the event's notability and the likely maximum possible length of the article become clearer with the passage of time. If deletion is still seen as preferable to a merge/redirect, the article can always come back to AfD in a week or two's time. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: The number of victims don't determine notability of a shooting and it is being widely reported. -UtoD 17:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: any attack on a large and globally recognized religious institution is worthy of a page, however, it might have prematurely created, but future edits will remedy that concern. 2601:646:9E02:6D60:A80E:6199:5902:DE42 (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, probably merge later. As others have said, this article was
Don't rush to delete articles about breaking news events. It's too early to properly assess notability here, and I struggle to see a good reason to delete as opposed to merging. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. As other editors have said, this just happened, and this was brought up for deletion way too soon. Give it a few days, for more secondary sources to present themselves, as some are already making headlines, but who knows, more may come out. If we can't find more coverage of the event in the next few days, I would move to merge/redirect, but for now, I vote to keep. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 20:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The shooting was high-profile, despite low casualties, and has received a lot of press. Tons of high-profile shootings have Wikipedia articles, and I as such don't see reason why this one should not. AmericanBaath (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The signifcant news coverage of the shooting makes it notable, not the number of casualties. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As noted above, the attack has garnered significant coverage regardless of the low causality count. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2024 (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.