Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 UCLA shooting

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 (note: this was closed by Group29 as "keep" as a NAC but this wasn't recorded at the top of this AfD, hence this note - see [1]). BencherliteTalk 00:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 UCLA shooting

[edit]
2016 UCLA 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)

This is completely non-notable, as it's just a run-of-the-mill murder-suicide involving just two people that conveniently occurred on a school campus. The press got a hold of this, thought it might be another mass school shooting, and ran the coverage, but it has since died down now that more details are coming in. The campus has already been declared safe and reopened; there's nothing else to see here that would suggest long-lasting notability. Parsley Man (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guess this teaches you not to rush to create articles for events that just hit the air. Parsley Man (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being. See talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I anticipated that the incident may ultimately prove to be non-notable; that's why I started a conversation to that effect on the Talk page (which is where I thought, and still think, it should be at this early hour). There is, however, no need to rush to delete until more facts are known about the incident, the participants and the reaction (e.g., if UCLA institutes some new policy because of the incident, it could prove to be notable though a merge may also be appropriate). General Ization Talk 00:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So far, the incident, participants, and reaction are routine, we haven't had any notable statements made by notable people, and I don't see what kind of new policies UCLA can institute because of the incident aside from making the campus a gun-free zone (which I assume it already is because most schools are). Parsley Man (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with people above. Wikipedia isn't a news wiki site, there is a news portion of wiki that is appropriate. This simply isn't noteworthy enough to have its own entry. Even hours after the even the page is barely even a stub class article. I recommend deletion citing the notability guidelines. Please delete. GoldenSHK (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or redirect to UCLA, and add a sentence there. we have Category:University shootings in the United States, so not many articles on this topic. the professor is a textbook author, but nothing particularly notable beyond that, so he doesnt appear to be notable by BLP standards. unfortunately, murders and murder/suicides are so common that they dont rise themselves to article status. the best i can see, aside from a UCLA sentence, is if someone created a list of university shootings, based on the category, but i dont see a need for that, either as an alternative to the category, or to document any other less notable shootings. the reason for this being in the news cycle is that we dont normally expect students to kill, we expect universities to be civilized. if only it were more true (mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:B8CF:4C57:18E9:ACDD (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RA0808 talkcontribs 02:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable event with major worldwide coverage. At least keep it for now, as more may come out of this event during the ongoing investigation. There was also a very large manhunt, and that should add to the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beejsterb (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a manhunt, it was a search for possible additional shooters. The shooter was most likely dead when the police responded, according to reports. Parsley Man (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is a global project that should document purely notable events. With due regards to the unfortunate scenario of the accident, this is a very ordinary and run-of-the-mill shooting. The investigations that are happening are similar and so is the subsequent campus search – very ordinary and regular reportage, nothing notable. Xender Lourdes (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into parent article as per delete votes, however the incident is notable enough that it should be kept on Wikipedia and transferred to the parent article. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 06:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged the article into University of California, Los Angeles; if it is not controversial I think a delete of this article is in store. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 06:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to speedy keep considering how expanded the article is, and how massive the media coverage is now. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 06:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was the professor a prominent researcher? I wikified him but another editor removed the red link.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a historical event related to the university, I believe it should be mentioned on the UCLA article. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 14:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to the story apparently. He had a "kill list", with another UCLA professor on the list. This AFD seems premature.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The event is more widespread than just the shooter, [2]. It seems likely that additional policies will be put into place, specifically, I think more locations will be able to shelter in place better in the future. McKay (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like something that can just easily be mentioned in the main UCLA article without any problem. Parsley Man (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

[edit]
  • Comment The plot is starting to thicken a bit, with the report (from Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck) that a "kill list" was found at the gunman's Minnesota home and the implication revelation ("Sarkar ... drove from Minnesota to the Los Angeles area with two handguns, multiple round of ammunition and several magazines in a backpack, according to the LAPD chief."[3]) that he travelled from MN to California to kill the professor and the report that a woman on the list was found dead.[4] As I earlier suggested, I recommend we give the case some time to develop before we write it off as a "simple" murder-suicide. General Ization Talk 16:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RAPID Suggest we suspend this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This: [5]. Changing to Keep. Even the mere fact of targeting a second professor on a "kill list" persuades me. This AFD is an object lesson in not rushing to delete breaking news stories. I move we close this now. It can be reopened if these stories fail to pan out, but the AFD on a breaking story not only makes Wikipedia look idiotic, it discouraged editors from building the article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty presumptive and doesn't mean much. Parsley Man (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Story is all over the news, WaPo, LATimes, in fact, the problem here was in rushing to AFD. AS WP:RAPID states, "it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge." This is a textbook example of why WP:RAPID exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:E.M.Gregory that this should be closed for now.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think E.M.'s reminder of WP:RAPID is right on point. General Ization Talk 16:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand "the way things work" when it comes to the investigation of and articles about violent crimes. The crime itself has already occurred and received widespread, national (indeed international) coverage, which justified an initial presumption of notability. It is unrealistic to think that all of the aspects of any crime, some of which potentially determine its notability, will be known within the first day or days after the event. I was perhaps the first to suggest (on the article's Talk page) that we keep an open mind concerning its notability, especially when it became clear that it was not a hostage situation or (obvious) domestic terrorism. But the argument that the article was "precreated in anticipation of content" is misguided. In such cases, we won't know what we don't know until the authorities have a chance to discover it; in the mean time, this is beginning to appear to be much more than just a "run of the mill" murder-suicide, as the original nominator proclaimed it. General Ization Talk 18:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my word choices were not very good. I can't help but recall the San Bernadino shooting not too long ago, and the activity that followed during it's unfolding on 2015 San Bernardino attack. My core argument is that with events like this, where the investigation is still unfolding and information is being constantly updated and contradicted, I feel that the creation of an article on the subject is a futile and wasteful effort, as the messy process of trying to keep up with every new piece of info from latimes or whatever will necessitate most of the article being copy edited and rewritten. (Not to mention that the style and format of such editing is rife with WP:NOTNEWS vios.) Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of an article on such a prominent event, whether or not it proves to be notable, is neither "futile" nor "wasteful"; one might say it is inevitable. Better that an article be created by experienced and responsible editors, prepared to copy edit, rewrite and cull incorrect and/or poorly referenced information when it appears, than the article be used as a container for all the misinformation that regularly emerges during such events on social media. All in all, I think our collective restraint with regard to this article has been admirable, and the pace of its expansion appropriate. General Ization Talk 19:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, you also have the prerogative to close the discussion early, if you choose to do so. As others have said, there is nothing to preclude a subsequent nomination if it should prove to be warranted, and this discussion will remain for reference. General Ization Talk 18:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to, though. Parsley Man (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even the nominator should refrain from closing his own AFD if there are multiple outstanding delete !votes. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Closing a discussion is not all that difficult, but it is not supposed to be withdrawn by Nom while there are outstanding delete !votes or or closed by any editor who has already rendered an opinion. Any editor who has not yet weighed in is free to close this now. And probably should.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No real opinion for deletion or otherwise, but I agree with those above that it should be closed for now per WP:RAPID, and reopened later if it seems to not meet WP:GNG. Gluons12 talk 18:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I was going to say delete last night, but decided to sleep on it. In light of new information about this shooting, it appears to be notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia really should do something about people trying to delete every incident that looks like a terrorist attack. There is something more to this when this fellow is targeting not only a former professor but also a former girlfriend, and weapons-up with 2 semiautomatic weapons and drives cross-continent to do it, as if he intended to terrorize a campus, not just settle scores with one professor. Redhanker (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have no confirmation that he wanted to attack anyone aside from the people in his hit-list, though... Parsley Man (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He did not need to bring two semi-automatic weapons and multiple magazines with him in the car to California, as reliable sources (LAPD Chief Becker) report he did, if he only anticipated shooting two unarmed university professors. General Ization Talk
But he seemed to shoot himself right after he killed Klug. Parsley Man (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can reasonably infer his intent from the weaponry with which he equipped himself; he was clearly prepared to kill more than two people, though the others he was prepared to kill might have been the law enforcement officers he expected might obstruct his apparent mission. We can infer nothing from the fact he didn't actually use all of his weaponry and instead killed himself, because there are too many possible explanations, the confirmation of any of which is now impossible (we would need to know his thoughts at that moment). General Ization Talk 23:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uncivil comments by editor now blocked for vandalism
It was not workplace violence, and do you have a source for the Bengali Muslim claim? Parsley Man (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The story is indeed being framed as workplace violence and the shooter was, until very recently, repeatedly described as a "white male" even though he was a dark Bengali Muslim. Kafir and lovin' it (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources please, if you don't have any then please stop making possibly BLP-violating claims (IIRC it applies to recently-deceased people). ansh666 21:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only...the guy hasn't worked there in years, and even then, it was in an unofficial position as teaching assistant, so the workplace violence angle is very presumptive. The reports have treated it more like a school shooting more than anything. Plus, I have never, EVER seen any descriptions of him being a "white male" in any of the articles I've read, so I don't know where that came from. Parsley Man (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is it possible for someone to nominate an article for deletion and work on that article and yet not read any of the sources? You're either a liar or unable to read. Dozens of sources reported the shooter was a white male wearing black until today. And CBS just reported how the media screwed up on this point. I don't think you can be trusted with things like facts and evidence, Parsley Man. It's one thing to make a mistake, it's another to deny out of hand the facts. You cannot be trusted. Kafir and lovin' it (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That nomination was done before the new info (i.e. the dead woman, the kill list, etc.) came up today. And I wasn't able to read those early reports because I use Google's recent news search, which shows the most recent articles by chronological order, for events like this and I use the first results of whatever comes up. Also, you didn't really answer Ansh666's question for sources on the Bengali Muslim claim, so I can say the same about you for trustworthiness. Parsley Man (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kafir and lovin' it: WP:CIVILITY: read it. General Ization Talk 22:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that with killings in 2 states this will fade, University angle tends ot keep these things alive. note that the 2006 San Diego State University shooting has attracted ongoing interest.sources.
  • WP:SNOWBALL. We all have better things to do. (not sure if I should x out my previous !vote after throwing a SNOWBALL.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Coverage is national, not local, so the nominator's characterization of non-notable, as it's just a run-of-the-mill murder-suicide involving just two people is inaccurate. The coverage received is not consistent with WP:109PAPERS that would merit deletion. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not trying to cite many WPs here, based on my common sense as a person who has gone through the Ph.D. process in a U.S. school, I think this event will open up the discussion about the terrible work atmosphere in engineering graduate schools in U.S.. It will pass the test of time as an important event. Taha (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. This is a valuable perspective that many of us cannot speak to; I'm glad you did. General Ization Talk 14:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it is a very notable article in the immediate future and if it turns out to not be notable over a larger period of time, say in a coupel months, then it can be deleted. Until now it is generating a lot of attention. AustinBrister (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a arbitrary section break above to delineate the point at which new information emerged about this case that (I perceive) turned the tide of responses from a general consensus of Delete to Keep, in order to allow a potential closer to better assess the current consensus. General Ization Talk 15:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see many editors condemning User:Parsley Man's nomination as a rush to judgment. Assuming arguendo that notability was established once more details about the incident were revealed, there is still nothing objectionable about the nomination. At the time the nom was made, it was reasonable to have a good-faith belief, based on current news coverage, that this was a flash-in-the-pan murder-suicide. Even if the article had been deleted, it could have been easily recreated once notability is established. Additionally, I must oppose the position that this discussion should be speedily closed. Once more information came out, many editors reassessed their positions on the issue. This would not have been possible if the discussion had been prematurely closed, as has been suggested by some above. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 19:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of Wikipedia articles for individual murders. D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per General Ization and Dervorguilla. I think the developments of the "kill list" and alleged additional murder absolutely imply "further analysis or discussion," and media coverage was indeed extensive. It makes little sense to delete the article now, only to resurrect it once/if further revelations transpire and are reported. GABgab 23:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a notable event. Per Sometimes the sky is blue's comment, notability is not temporary and therefore all the WP:NOTNEWS delete rationales aren't that valid here. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's the kind of topic that merits coverage on Wikipedia and is too big to fit into another article (would you want to put all or most of this information into the UCLA main article?), so I think this sad stupid horrible event merits its own article, sadly. Blythwood (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notable thing about this event is that because people thought it was a school shooting, the police response involved hundreds of special forces officers. It's not necessarily the murder that is noteworthy but the response. This is evidence of the growing normalization of school shootings in the US. User:Rileyfricke (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It stands as a far more significant event in the history of Los Angeles and UCLA than the UCLA Taser incident, which survived its own deletion discussion 10 years ago. Group29 (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG. Covered nationally US and internationally in multiple countries. Covered extensively by radio, TV, and newspapers. Note that hatted individual's vote was Keep and may have been unfairly silenced beyond the uncivil conduct. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The basis cited by the editor who provided the collapsed !vote itself contained a WP:BLP violation, since it made an assertion about the perpetrator's religion that was not (and still is not) supported by reliable sources. That, combined with the uncivil commentary and the fact that the editor has been blocked indef, made the editor's comments less than credible and their !vote dispensable. General Ization Talk 12:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. Personally, this has been up for far too long already. Parsley Man (talk) 18:27, 9 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2016_UCLA_shooting&oldid=1220775694"