The result was keep. WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) WWGB ( talk) 05:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
I would like it nominated on the grounds of
wp:NOTNEWS. Coverage of the topic is *exclusively* from news sources covering the incident. There is no evidence that this event will be an enduringly notable event, ... considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style.
I would support this article being draftified until such time as evidence emerges that this incident is enduringly notable (for instance, if it continues to recieve coverage and attention from sources months later, or is later shown to be integral to understanding some kind of legal reform, etc).
128.189.112.147 (
talk)
01:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.- no evidence of this at this time
An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.- not the case as all the sources used, along with sources found, are reformulating the same reuters/CBC piece.
Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle- unclear right now as it literally happened today
Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.- this is indeed true, but again, all the sources are regurtitating the same reuters/CBC source, thus should be counted as less valuable, as
sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. CoreyToldMeToDoThis ( talk) 03:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The result was keep. WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) WWGB ( talk) 05:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
I would like it nominated on the grounds of
wp:NOTNEWS. Coverage of the topic is *exclusively* from news sources covering the incident. There is no evidence that this event will be an enduringly notable event, ... considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style.
I would support this article being draftified until such time as evidence emerges that this incident is enduringly notable (for instance, if it continues to recieve coverage and attention from sources months later, or is later shown to be integral to understanding some kind of legal reform, etc).
128.189.112.147 (
talk)
01:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.- no evidence of this at this time
An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.- not the case as all the sources used, along with sources found, are reformulating the same reuters/CBC piece.
Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle- unclear right now as it literally happened today
Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.- this is indeed true, but again, all the sources are regurtitating the same reuters/CBC source, thus should be counted as less valuable, as
sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. CoreyToldMeToDoThis ( talk) 03:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)