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 keep. not a sufficient case for deletion. But it is not clear to me where we should draw the line for these articles. NOT NEWS depends entirely upon how the people at afd choose to interpret the available material. . DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 24 October 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)

WP:NOTNEWS John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article has been through a AfD as early as August. I see nothing that has changed that would justify an AfD so soon again. It has good sourcing, noted article subject. NOTNEWS does not apply here. I would suggest speedy keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you provide evidence that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply, i.e. some discussion of this event in reliable sources other than news reports? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A simple Google search and the article itself provides that. I have nothing to prove. NOTNEWS does not apply.BabbaQ (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article itself only cites four news reports from the same day, so WP:NOTNEWS very much does apply. Repeating an unsubstantiated opinion doesn't turn it into a fact. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, exactly so why do you repeat it. It does not make it right.BabbaQ (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Nomination fails to make the case that 'not news' justifies deletion. No evidence presented that it is original reporting, or that it's routine coverage of sports, announcements or celebrities. Enduring notability is indicated by the ongoing coverage after the event. Wikipedia:JUSTAPOLICY explains why this nomination is an argument without an argument. See also WP:INTHENEWS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you point to some of that ongoing coverage? The sources cited in the article are all from the day after this shooting. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Must I? There's a link right at the top of this page. I will give you the links if I must, but why do you even need to ask? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody is obliged to do anything, but I don't see any evidence of lasting coverage from the links at the top of this page, so it would help if you could provide some examples of sources that go beyond simple news reports. I understand that sources won't necessarily include this exact phrase, so others probably exist. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a minimum of due diligence for the nominator, prior to starting an AfD discussion, or !voting. See WP:BEFORE, based on the Deletion policy and the Notability guidelines: "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.". Now, here you go:

The purpose of AfD is not to rope somebody else into doing this research for you. The proposer is expected to make at least a halfassed effort to find out if the nomination has a snowball's chance, and not waste the time of other editors shooting down a nomination that is dead on arrival. Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions spells all this out in even greater detail, so that AfD discussions don't need to re-post that entire package of advice and and explanation all over again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I asked a civil question, to which I expected a civil answer. Once again, can you please identify any reliable secondary sources containing significant analysis of this event, rather than routine primary sources such as news reports about what happened on a particular day. Be selective about it rather than hide such sources among the many primary news reports that you dumped above. And you seem to be confusing me with the nominator, who I am not. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I recommend an intervention with the nominator, who has used an argument from WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to start this deletion discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there interventions for tripping over WP:AADD? Nominator does seem to have made multiple nominations in the last month that consist of "Just pointing at a policy or guideline". We can ask, please, would everyone follow the advice on that page, and the instructions at WP:BEFORE? Me included. We all make mistakes; I have made mistakes, and I will make new ones. Hopefully new, and not repeat too many old ones. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is easier said than done.  Please review this diff for WP:BEFORE adequacy.  Comments?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like a run of the mill shooting incident to me, no evidence of ongoing or international coverage. Seasider91 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Did you look for recent coverage?  I found coverage from five days ago, October 11, in Google news, [1].  Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Keep  Has ongoing coverage after two AfDs.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. There's no reason to suspect that coverage will abate in the future, and WP:NTEMP anyways. GNG met, WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply to exceptional events like this. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this really an exceptional event? The impression that I get from the other side of the Atlantic is that shooting incidents killing three people are all too commonplace in the United States. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Now you're just badgering. Please. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'm discussing, not badgering. Please respect the right of other editors to question statements in discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I voted for the article's deletion in the previous AfD on the basis of a perceived lack of notability, and I was about to vote for its deletion again. But considering a list of references has been provided to prove the coverage is, surprisingly, still ongoing, I am now vouching for this article to be kept. It will definitely need more work, but I guess that's what the list of references is here for. Also, I agree with Dennis Bratland that the nominator has failed to provide a case for the article's deletion beyond the mere mention of WP:NOTNEWS and nothing else, which I personally find weird, but whatever. Parsley Man (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP!!!!!! I just created an account now to add to this. I don't even know if I am doing this correctly. I am the stepfather of Jacob Long that was killed in this story. I want the story left as is. This is a death penalty eligible case and it will be followed closely by many people. It will be used for decades for legal cases that come up later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingaboard (talk • contribs) 05:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close. This is not an apt case for an Afd. The ongoing coverage and the past sources I have reviewed provide enough scope for sustained notability. Like I said, not an apt Afd candidate. Lourdes 06:39, 24 October 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.