Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Mukilteo 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 no consensus. No consensus has arisen at this time. Perhaps this should be revisited in a few months to determine if the event has received ongoing coverage and analysis as per WP:SUSTAINED, or conversely, if a lack of said ongoing coverage and analysis is evident, then WP:NOTNEWS is applicable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Mukilteo shooting[edit]

2016 Mukilteo 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)

Just another shooting with a few casualties that violates WP:NOTNEWS. Prevan (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I fail to see the notability of this incident. Parsley Man (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A deranged individual got his hands on a gun and went on a shooting rampage - an all-too-common headline. He had a motive, there was a trial, discussion of the victims' lives, mourning, official statements, reconstruction of the massacre. Tragic, no doubt. But as cynical as it sounds, there really is no indication of the sort of enduring notability needed to pass WP:NOTNEWS. Thus, delete. GAB^gab 01:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Lots of coverage, after-effects, and other shootings with the same death toll have articles. Beejsterb (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Beejsterb is the creator of this article. Parsley Man (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a) there is no enduring coverage to surpass the NOTNEWS benchmark b) what exactly are those aftereffects? I'm seeing none to speak of c) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GAB^gab 01:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has obtained international news coverage, and one article about aftereffects. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pretty much local and 'in other news' coverage, and the 'international' coverage isn't there as The Daily Mail is very low as a trusted source as their story is just 'wire service regurgitation'. Nate • (chatter) 04:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS Individual crimes are not usually notable.--Savonneux (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per good sourcing, per extensive international coverage. most of the delete-reasoning is based on IDONTLIKEIT.BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Literally no one has said that.--Savonneux (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- trying to figure out why we wouldn't. 4 people were killed. It's an event that happened. It's not hurting anything, and doesn't 'clearly' violate anything.El cid, el campeador (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We have an essay about that WP:HURT--Savonneux (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep incident is notable and has potential developing through the time . Sophonore (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kristijh (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why the article should be kept?

• Comment - The news coverage has pretty much stopped right now. There doesn't seem to be any outstanding motive for the shooter; probably just a run-of-the-mill nutcase. Parsley Man (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – WP:NOTNEWS; lots of coverage doesn't make it encyclopedic, per GAB's comments. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:04, 23 August 2016 (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.