Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Bluff 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 List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020#List. While the current consensus is to redirect, should coverage prove to be ongoing the article content and history will still be there for future improvement and work. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bluff shooting

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

Red Bluff 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)

WP:NOTNEWS. A shooting with such low casualty numbers (two deaths including the gunman and four injuries) is absolutely non-notable, especially in a country with a gun violence epidemic like the United States. This Associate Press article pretty much makes it clear that those are the only numbers we're going to get, so I can't imagine this event getting any worse. Love of Corey (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How? Low-casualty incidents like this are a dime a dozen in the U.S. What makes this one stand out aside from the news coverage, which is always typical for a breaking news event such as this? Love of Corey (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Love of Corey: This doesn't necessarily "stard out" - those mass shootings, if they have the coverage, are all likely notable DannyS712 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Read my excerpt below. Love of Corey (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In response to KidAd, how long do you think that news coverage is going to last, especially with those casualty numbers? The 24-hour news cycle is definitely going to drop this in the blink of an eye. Love of Corey (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t really understand what you’re getting at. A notable event doesn’t need to permanantly remain until the news to maintain notability.
talk) 09:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Love of Corey (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Meets
talk) 09:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
"Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." Love of Corey (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My question is what exactly does this event have that makes it sufficiently notable, aside from the coverage as of now? What do we have that would cause a source like CNN to revisit it in the days and weeks ahead? Love of Corey (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd endorse a merge if needs be. I can't imagine this article being expanded any further based on the information we have. Love of Corey (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to Keep Article appears to meet
    WP:EVENT could apply here depending on the depth of coverage and whether there is any lasting impact but I have not researched sufficiently to determine whether these are likely to apply and it is unlikely we are going to be able to do so until some days have past.Tracland (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - This was another case of a disgruntled worker. Can't get any more routine than this. Love of Corey (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your flippancy is concerning.
talk) 18:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
How so? Love of Corey (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a therapist, but your stance of "not enough people died/just another case of a disgruntled worker" seems a bit cold. And neither are notability standards. While the most heinous examples of gun violence often receive significant coverage, it is also important to spotlight incidents with lower casualty numbers.
talk) 18:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
You don't get to dictate which events should get spotlighted; the amount and kind of news coverage does. Events with smaller casualty numbers like the
Saugus High School shooting got substantial articles because they nevertheless received significant attention from politicians and other figures in addition to news sources. There's no sign of that kind of attention here. Love of Corey (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020#List. This is a cut and paste of every shooting response ever.... the media reports on it, and there are people who offer their condolences. I do not see what stands out about this shooting that makes it any different than the dozens of other mass shootings on the list. There isn't even any international coverage of this event... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's been over a week since the shooting occurred, and according to this Google search, all national coverage has completely stopped after a day or two. Local coverage persisted for a little while longer, but even those sources don't have any new articles posted in the past 48 hours, which tells me they're starting to lose interest too. At this point, Knowledgekid87's suggestion is the most reasonable outcome, along with a possible brief mention on the Red Bluff, California article. Other than that, I don't see how this event deserves its own article. It hasn't even received any notable reaction from third-party figures of importance like politicians or celebrities, not even once. Love of Corey (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For me things like this come down to how much regional or national news coverage the event receives. I see there's a few articles from the Sacramento Bee and Yahoo News, but I'm not sure that's enough. Maybe if Record Searchlight was considered regional, but they have came up as a source a few times and I've never been able to figure it out definitively. If someone can't make a case that they are or provide other national news articles about the indecent that aren't already in the article I'd be more then willing to vote keep though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete An unfortunately routine workplace shooting, with all of the standard features and coverage. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration I recommend Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020#List per below. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Wikipedia is not news, and this event doesn't seem to have lasting notability. Again, this doesn't make the event any less tragic, just means that it doesn't merit its own article. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020#List. After looking into it more I think that's the reasonable thing to do. It was notable enough for some national coverage when it happened. So it's worth a mention somewhere. But it isn't sustained enough to warrant an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good sourcing. Substantial article that would not benefit from a merge. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a topic is well-sourced doesn't mean it's inherently notable. You'd think this would have persisting coverage if this wasn't so notable. Love of Corey (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful not to
WP:BLUDGEON the discussion: "The more often you express the same reason in a given discussion, the less effective your words become." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay. Love of Corey (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2020 (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/Red_Bluff_shooting&oldid=968067993"