Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 UCLA shooting: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:43, 2 June 2016

2016 UCLA shooting

(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]

Delete Completely agreed with the above here. Page should be deleted. I don't understand why every tiny shooting should have a wikipedia page. Originally it was reported that it was possible that it was multiple gunmen across campus, but that's clearly not what happened. This is completely non-notable. Would highly vote for deletion. 2605:E000:858A:CB00:DCF:B9B9:B0F2:EF2D (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created the page assuming it would turn out to be something bigger. Turns out it wasn't. Rossbawse (talk) 00:15, 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 ^talk _contribs 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]

Incident already listed at History of the University of California, Los Angeles, however this incident is notable enough that I think it should have a mention on the parent article. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 06:21, 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]

Delete per nominator and WP:NOTNEWS. -- ChamithN (talk) 09:23, 2 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]

Keep or merge - "2016 UCLA shooting" is a quite plausible search term, therefore, the article should either be kept or merged with a redirect and history kept in place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I propose that if the article cannot be kept, that the term redirect to History of the University of California, Los Angeles#2016 shooting. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ ~~While this does not support a stand-alone article,~~ the shooting of a professor on campus by a student is a notable event. I am not, however, generally in favor of keeping such thinks on the University's page (unless unusual details made that appropriate). What I'm looking for is a redirect target, perhaps to a List of gun-related homicides in the United States or List of gun-related deaths in California, or List of gun-related homicides in the California in 2016. Along the lines of List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States by decade Ideas for a redirect, User:Jax 0677, User:Zigzig20s, User talk:Rossbawse, User:General Ization, User:Optakeover, User:Parsley Man? Anybody? E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 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, [1]. 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]

Redirect to History of UCLA or something. This isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article. -- Veggies (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. "Experts say murders of professors on campus are not common, but they do happen." Incidents of violence are common, and the only reason this one got so much coverage was because it happened to be inside a university building. At this point, it seems to be an isolated incident of violence that does not merit WP inclusion. However, the reaction to the incident may eventually merit inclusion at History of the University of California, Los Angeles (depending on how future events occur), so I would !vote for a redirect to that article in the alternative. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 15:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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."[2]) that he travelled from MN to California to kill the professor and the report that a woman on the list was found dead.[3] 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: [4]. 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]

Keep and Close per comments by E.M.Gregory et al. and per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Events that are only covered ... immediately after [the] event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult ... to determine shortly after the event occurs... That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." Further "analyis or discussion" of this event would appear to be more likely than not. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 17:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For now, I recommend allowing this discussion to continue for at least one week after it started, to allow everyone an opportunity to comment on the AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more than just a one-off murder-suicide. Guy has a kill list, kills someone in Minnesota, drives 2000 miles with guns to kill a professor in his office. More than passing coverage in media, hence meets WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, per Carlos immediately above and depending on the coverage it gets from now on. Doesn't seem very run-of-the-mill to me. ansh 666 17:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge & redirect – Still in news cycle, notable content, hasty nomination. Baking Soda (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 *'''Keep''' more than just a one-off murder-suicide. Guy has a kill list, kills someone in Minnesota, drives 2000 miles with guns to kill a professor in his office. More than passing coverage in media, hence meets [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] ([[User talk:Carlossuarez46|talk]]) 17:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' or '''merge''', per Carlos immediately above and depending on the coverage it gets from now on. Doesn't seem very run-of-the-mill to me. [[User:Ansh666|ansh]][[User talk:Ansh666|<span style="font-size:80%">''666''</span>]] 17:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' or '''merge & redirect''' – Still in news cycle, notable content, hasty nomination. [[User:Baking Soda|Baking Soda]] ([[User talk:Baking Soda|talk]]) 17:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)