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.
This is not my area of expertise but this reads like a case of
WP:NOTNEWS and don't think it meets
WP:PERPETRATOR either
Gbawden (
talk) 09:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Wait Incident happened less than a week ago, and news reports are still coming in (last RS result I see is in 1 hour). If the stream of attention died out by the end of this AfD then
WP:NOTNEWS definitely goes. 野狼院ひさしu/
t/
c 14:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per NOTNEWS.
331dot (
talk) 19:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - per fact of too early nomination. I can see current notability through good sourcing. who knows what will happen in 6 months from now. NOTNEWS does not apply here.--
BabbaQ (
talk) 16:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)reply
delete clearly WP:NOTNEWS. it is WP:CRYSTAL balling to suggest long term notability in 6 months time.
LibStar (
talk) 12:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NORTH AMERICA1000 01:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge (as a single sentence) into
Columbine_High_School_massacre#Becoming_part_of_the_vernacular. This would probably be notable if there were an external terrorism angle, or the plotters actually had mowed down a lot of people at the mall. But no, there's only a single shooting in a house and some suspects with a lurid tale.
Pax 09:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Continuing to generate national coverage in Canada, and coverage in Britain
[1], the U.S.
[2] as the accused move slowly through the legal process. Extensive coverage (both geographically and over the weeks since the arrests) meets
WP:GNG.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 20:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep for now per
WP:RAPID. There doesn't seem to be any consensus one way or another in the present. I recommend closing as keep or no consensus for now, and then re-nominating the article in a month or two when the lasting impact of the event can be more easily determined.
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 05:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Luckily this incident didn't get much further than a plot. We can't mention every single foiled news plot on Wikipedia, because it could basically bring any news story into the main article space. And as mentioned before, Wikipedia is not an arbitrary list of news articles.Aerospeed (
Talk) 12:02, 12 March 2015 (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.
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.
This is not my area of expertise but this reads like a case of
WP:NOTNEWS and don't think it meets
WP:PERPETRATOR either
Gbawden (
talk) 09:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Wait Incident happened less than a week ago, and news reports are still coming in (last RS result I see is in 1 hour). If the stream of attention died out by the end of this AfD then
WP:NOTNEWS definitely goes. 野狼院ひさしu/
t/
c 14:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per NOTNEWS.
331dot (
talk) 19:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - per fact of too early nomination. I can see current notability through good sourcing. who knows what will happen in 6 months from now. NOTNEWS does not apply here.--
BabbaQ (
talk) 16:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)reply
delete clearly WP:NOTNEWS. it is WP:CRYSTAL balling to suggest long term notability in 6 months time.
LibStar (
talk) 12:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NORTH AMERICA1000 01:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge (as a single sentence) into
Columbine_High_School_massacre#Becoming_part_of_the_vernacular. This would probably be notable if there were an external terrorism angle, or the plotters actually had mowed down a lot of people at the mall. But no, there's only a single shooting in a house and some suspects with a lurid tale.
Pax 09:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Continuing to generate national coverage in Canada, and coverage in Britain
[1], the U.S.
[2] as the accused move slowly through the legal process. Extensive coverage (both geographically and over the weeks since the arrests) meets
WP:GNG.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 20:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep for now per
WP:RAPID. There doesn't seem to be any consensus one way or another in the present. I recommend closing as keep or no consensus for now, and then re-nominating the article in a month or two when the lasting impact of the event can be more easily determined.
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 05:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Luckily this incident didn't get much further than a plot. We can't mention every single foiled news plot on Wikipedia, because it could basically bring any news story into the main article space. And as mentioned before, Wikipedia is not an arbitrary list of news articles.Aerospeed (
Talk) 12:02, 12 March 2015 (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.