www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Philadelphia shooting

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. This is not the first time I've seen this with an "event" type article of this nature, where there is substantial disagreement over whether the references meet the requirements of sustained coverage beyond "breaking news" type material, and at the end of the day no consensus is reached. I might, therefore, encourage some general discussion over that subject and maybe the formulation of some RfC questions on it, to perhaps develop a consensus on what standards the community wishes to set for the inclusion of articles on events, rather than trying to hash out the issue at many individual AfDs. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Philadelphia shooting

edit

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

2022 Philadelphia shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable crime. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EFFECT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, spare me the lecture on civility and direct your comment at the editor who clearly enjoys hounding me, calling me a liar, casting aspersions, and voting delete in any article by me brought to AfD. I've had enough, and I've asked Scope creep to leave me alone many times. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're has been 470 mass shootings in America this year already. I don' see crime articles as being particularly notable, since each event is so generic in terms of its commonality. The same thing happens everywhere all the time. There is very little that differentiates them and the reporting is exactly the same in almost every instance. Ultimately folk on Wikipedia who create these articles are not interested in the special and unique, instead decide to record the mundane and common. Lastly, I never knew this was an article that Another Believer's wrote. But either way, it is just another generic crime article that is exactly the same as all the others. scope_creepTalk 16:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:scope creep, don't you look at the page history when evaluating articles for AFD? Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I never look at article contribution history, there is no value in it. The first thing I look at is the article content, then the references, then do a WP:BEFORE to see if there is anything else that can support the article. To repeat the message above. I've no interest in Wikipedia of becoming a directory of shooting's or crimes, which it seems to be starting to do. It puzzles me why folk seem to latch onto individual instances of criminal events, as dreadful as they are, and think that somehow that because they are heavily reported that somehow make them notable. It doesn't. All crimes are heavily reported, even when they are identical. At best it makes them instances of a single type of a crime event, that crimologists don't even look at over historical time, never mind historians of crime and its effects. At the end ,we will end up with reams, 10000's of crime articles that are almost identical in there nature, while the real articles, academic articles that examine crime and history of crime don't get written. Instead its this low-hanging fruit. Its junk really. scope_creepTalk 06:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the purpose of WP:NEVENT, which no one else seems to read, much less follow. The word, 'and', appears to be of particular difficulty for many editors: have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, is the big one, as echoed in the Background section. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). Attempts to explain any of that ends with (at best) a perfunctory 'agree to disagree' as you can see above. Since policy arguments are seen by most closers as no more persuasive than emotional pleas, we are ending up exactly where you say, with many thousands of articles on shock news. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I wish I could just copy-and-paste this for my justification whenever I nominate a non-notable crime article for deletion (there are many more that I would've liked to have nominated, but I try not to clog up AfD). Replace a few words and it also applies to accidents, disasters, "incidents", etc. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed your view on a couple of "accident" AfDs in July using WP:RAPID as rationale, while admitting they were within the remit of NOTNEWS. My thinking was that if in a year's time nothing much had resulted from or been subsequently reported on the incidents, I'd likely go for delete in a follow up AfD. Brief particulars of this shooting are listed in List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022, though why such comprehensive listings of these shootings are being maintained is itself questionable. We're already up to 23 separate US mass shooting articles for 2023, which looks like a record year in terms of numbers. This one from 2022 being gang related, suggests little or no political impact, so a year later we no longer need a separate article, the brief note in the list covers the main aspects, but on balance it was acceptable to publish an article on this immediately after the incident. Rupples (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your reaction illustrates what I just said: The sustained coverage has been identified, yet it is brushed aside. If anyone else wants to support my opinion they are also welcome to it! gidonb (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gidonb, not to mention court proceedings will continue. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb, you didn't answer either question, so I'll rephrase: what WP:SUSTAINED sources are you talking about? They aren't on this page, and they aren't in the article. The only ones here are local mentions of the fact that the event happened with no analysis or integration, nor mention of any WP:LASTING impact... or even lasting interest. In fact, the articles themselves explain why this event cannot pass WP:NEVENT (emphasis added in all): Despite last year’s violence, she wasn’t shocked to learn that it had happened. “There’s constant shootings. And it’s like, ‘Oh, there was one only two blocks from us. Oh, this is a carjacking.’” and “family and friends mention it,” he said, “but South Street is still packed every Thursday through Sunday.” and "It slowed down dramatically because the traffic slowed down, but as of now it's picking up to where it used to be," Maverick said. Sarah Cowell from the South Street Headhouse District told FOX 29 no businesses closed as a direct result of the South Street shooting, and 38 new business have opened since 2022. This is the poster child for a terrible crime that, sadly, is simply not notable. I would also still appreciate some sort of explanation of your WP:IDONTLIKEIT assertion. It seems the only people who are providing policy specific are the deletionists (a group in which it is extremely odd to find myself). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you that the two sources produced to support SUSTAINED don't cut the mustard. Those two sources are local media reports so don't contribute to notability under WP:GEOSCOPE. For the article to be retained I'd want to see coverage outside Philadelphia. However, User:Another Believer may have a point on the court proceedings, which could feasibly be reported more widely. That's why I'm uncertain as to what's the best course of action at present and have refrained from !voting. Rupples (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm sorry to prolong this AFD but I see No Consensus, leaning Delete. It seems to all rest on WP:SUSTAINED here. Is a Redirect a possibility?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current !vote is 7:6 in favour of Keep. Since there is no consensus (to delete; this is a delete discussion) then surely the default is keep. WWGB (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • You could really see it either way depending on how you interpret guidelines like WP:NOTNEWS. I think it might be more productive to have a community discussion to more clearly define WP:NCRIME on which cases meet on notability and which do not, looking at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 for other examples. Also, it might be worth moving articles such as this over to Wikinews instead. - Indefensible (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely support either option, a merge into List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 or movement to Wikinews. The subject and sources meet policy for either (or both). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose merge to list (most of the entries there are a single sentence) or move to Wikinews. I agree with WWGB here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't look like an article in Wikinews would get the level of readership and exposure as one here, based on page views. Don't see much point in merging to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022, other than to add the outcome of the court case as the salient facts of the shooting are already mentioned there. A redirect to that article or to South Street, Philadelphia would however be appropriate and is preferable to outright deletion. If the page history is retained, the article could always be 'resurrected' should anything of significance result from the court case. It would maintain the integrity of NOTNEWS/SUSTAINED/GEOSCOPE which in my view this article is not compliant with, notwithstanding it passing GNG on sources. Rupples (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does pageviews really matter that much? The main point is the content lives somewhere across Wiki rather than just being deleted. The main suggestion I gave above was actually to improve WP:NCRIME which is largely useless right now. Once better thresholds are defined, it would become much clearer which articles meet the criteria for inclusion and which do not so that we do not have as many of these split decisions that end in no consensus. For the cases which do not meet, we could simply move the content to Wikinews and then cross-link it on the list page. - Indefensible (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to South Street, Philadelphia or delete. Not convinced by the Keep arguments, none of which have addressed WP:EFFECTS. WP:EVENTCRITERIA asks us to consider whether an event has longstanding or historical impact and the scope of coverage. This has not been demonstrated. Indeed, as User:Last1in has astutely pointed out, the retrospective 1 year anniversary sources lately added to the article imply the opposite. Police presence in the area increased for a few months, then returned to normal. Trade diminished in the aftermath, then recovered. Locals naturally scared to venture out, but confidence has largely returned. In summary, no lasting, significant impact and any temporary impact confined to the immediate neighbourhood, so WP:GEOSCOPE another indicator of notability is not satisfied. That's why I suggest a redirect to South Street, Philadelphia as an AtD — a bit more detail of this incident could be added there, but a full merge would give disproportionate weight to the incident. Also consider WP:DEPTH, yes, sources report the incident but where's the analysis that gives context to the shooting? Failing support for redirect, on policy grounds, it's delete. Rupples (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS and SUSTAINED. AryKun (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the response to my relist, I'm leaving this discussion for another closer to handle. Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 29 September 2023 (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/2022_Philadelphia_shooting&oldid=1177971420"