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. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee brewery 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:EVENT this is a terrible but not notable case of workplace violence LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Seven deaths seems significant, I believe. Also, not all information is in yet on the shooting; deleting this page within only a few hours of the event taking place is probably unjustified until we see whether anything else comes up about the details (motive, etc). That is to say: we can't deem it notable or not notable until some measure of time has passed. NomadicNom (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. It's too early to know all the facts, so let's wait and see how this pans out. WWGB (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are multiple mass shootings which received a Wikipedia article within 24 hours of occurring, such as the Las Vegas shooting. The precedent disagrees with your stance. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - far too soon to say that this mass shooting isn't notable. Jim Michael (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep likely notable enough for the morbid death count reasons (most deadly this year in the US) and a workplace shooting (rather than domestic/gangland). International headline/homepage press coverage. And if we delete we will just have multiple recreating it (like I likely would have done if it was not here.) Rovastar (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, we have no way of knowing if this will be notable or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think I am Crystal Balling here. The amount killed often highlights a level of noteworthiness (if it was 20 killed I imagine you would not object here even with the info we have so far). Looking at other years shooting lists List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 they likely would have there own articles for 6 dead (often less noteworthy are family/gang shootings where this is a workplace victims), so a sort of precedent I'm following. And I did say likely as well. International rather then just local coverage (BBC in UK, etc) on the homepage and international coverage which give more weight to noteworthiness, etc. Rovastar (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as per reasons summarised by Rovastar. Autarch (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we have to keep in mind that we have a List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020. Right now the sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage without going in depth into the suspect, or if this will have a WP:LASTING impact. Will deleting this article now, and recreating it later if it passes WP:N really be that much of an issue? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - per NomadicNom, too soon to say notable or not. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NomadicNom. Loksmythe (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There have been six deaths, including the gunman. That's a pretty notable amount. Not all the facts are in, so we should wait and see to make sure if there are any other notable elements. Racially-motivated shootings with less deaths in Germany have been retained for their notability. Also, it's definitely not "too soon" to publish an article about it, as multiple mass shootings have received Wikipedia articles within 24 hours of their occurrence. Other users have said that since we don't know if this shooting is notable enough, we should delete the article and reevaluate the situation later, because there's nothing to go against deleting it. Here's the problem: there's nothing to go against keeping it, either. Why should we flip the switch if there's uncertainty? MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for now: I created the article thinking the death toll would be higher, but for now, I don't see any real urgency to delete this at the moment. I'll have to point out, as precedence for these kinds of articles, Orlando factory shooting, which hasn't been subject to this kind of discussion ever since its creation nearly three years ago. Love of Corey (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - too early nom. Right now with the sources, media attention, death count this passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is notable. It received tonnes of headlines. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reliable source coverage is considerable. For example "In a city renowned for its brewing tradition, the sprawling Molson Coors campus was an icon in itself, a place known for decades to Milwaukee locals as the old Miller Brewery. But on Wednesday afternoon, officials said, a worker still in his uniform stormed the facility and began shooting."[1] The setting itself is described as being iconic. Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had this mass shooting happened at a church, school or shopping centre, the article would be much longer, it would have far more editors & there would be much more media coverage. The shooter having been a former employee who shot his former colleagues doesn't & shouldn't mean it's less notable. Jim Michael (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would there be more media coverage if it occurred at a Church, school or shopping center? Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can see from the reactions to previous mass shootings that what I've said is true. The media & general public are much more horrified when mass shootings take place at those locations. When a (former) employee shoots his colleagues or a person kills their family at home, the media & public usually aren't anywhere near as interested. Jim Michael (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of kids hanging out in those places, makes parents anxious and clicky, especially if their kid might be there. If you're the sort of kid who hangs out at a brewery on weekdays, your parents probably already don't care. Mines, factories, strip clubs...same effect. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, what is it with this apparent wikiobsession amongst some editors to get these tragedies on WP so quickly? according to the article, this occurred around 2.30pm on the 26th, the article was created on 9.55pm of the 26th how can this not be WP:NOTNEWS? how can this meet WP:NNEWS ie. "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time."? also, some of the "keepers" above appear to concede this - "we can't deem it notable or not notable until some measure of time has passed", "It's too early to know all the facts ,,", "far too soon to say that this mass shooting isn't notable", "too soon to say notable or not." and so on, why not dratify this, if it proves to be notable it can then be moved back to mainspace. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A major disadvantage of creating articles days, weeks etc. after the event rather than minutes or hours after is that far fewer people will edit it & therefore the article won't be as good. Articles in draft are typically edited by far fewer people. Jim Michael (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem....as BLP violations and pre-mature jumps to "terrorism" as a motive has become all too common. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While we read that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" we also have articles like Mike the headless chicken. We are constantly exercising our own discretion. How can a shooting at a Molson Coors Beverage Company in Milwaukee, killing 6 people, not be notable? Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, merge or redirect - Keep, or merge to List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#2020. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a significant mass shooting and the deadliest in the US so far. Gianluigi02 (talk), 28 February 2020
• Keep: There is no legitimate argument to delete this article. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I would point out that if someone can come up with a reason to justify removing this, at least a dozen or more other similar articles would need to be nominated. Perhaps some more rigid guidelines about what qualifies as 'notable' in this increasingly common space of news should be considered. CNN, even with everything else going on, covered this for a day. --DanielNuyu (talk) 07:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it made national news for some days, and was discussed by major Presidential candidates. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2020 (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.