Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Williamsburg massacre

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Williamsburg massacre[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. No sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and West Virginia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have sustained coverage, as there has been a long running controversy over the DHS treatment of the children.

It also possibly had a significant impact on Virginian law [1]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sort of retrospective study or analysis here that would amount to sustained coverage. I just see news stories in response to new events like the lawsuit. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of WP:SUSTAINED is that it does not necessarily require that - "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability". I read sustained to be over a non-breaking news period of time (given that the heading is "over a sufficiently significant period of time"). Also from what I can see the sources do offer analysis in the context of WV's child care systems and used as an example event that demonstrates the failures of it. But I think you may have a different interpretation of that policy than me. Since this has been covered on and off for a few years, made international news, and seems to be discussed with some analysis I think it is okay to keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. There needs to be more sourcing and proof of extended/sustained coverage. If the DHS's treatment of the children is established, it needs to be included in the article. Additionally, the article needs a fair amount of editing. Anwegmann (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the time for draftifying may be a bit past, given that this article has existed in mainspace for a while. If it survives I volunteer to add the later sources/DHS stuff, draftying is either prolonging the inevitable deletion or keeping it out of mainspace for no reason PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. Anwegmann (talk) 02:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion immediately above. Anwegmann (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a notable event, and the sources provided are all valid. Sadly, larger and intervening events are going to preclude sustained and ongoing coverage for years to come for things like this. If there were a trial, there would certainly be more coverage, but in a murder-suicide there's not going to have been one. There will certainly be more sources available, likely including online newspapers, such as the Herald-Dispatch and Charleston Gazette. P Aculeius (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUSTAINED and PARAKANYAA's sources. Afd is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Sorry—not trying to SHOUT. StonyBrook _babble 20:23, 28 February 2024 (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.