Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Aurora shooting

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 delete. Giving credence to the sequential tilt in the !voting towards delete, and considering the 'time' factor involved in such an incident, I'm deleting the article. Wifione ^Message 13:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Aurora shooting

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

Just another US shooting, not notable, fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:N/CA, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sadly, such incidents are fairly common. This one isn't extraordinary or sufficiently notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's receiving an exceptional amount of media attention because it took place in the same town as last year's cinema massacre, which appears to have been the primary motivation behind the article's creation. (Before WWGB intervened, it focused more on this coincidence than it did on the facts of the January 5 shooting, with multiple mentions of the movie theater's proximity, its photograph in the infobox, and a claim that the two events were "similar".) My heart goes out to the people who lost loved ones in this shooting, but it doesn't inherit the notability of the massacre that occurred nearby. —David Levy 11:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Too much recentism also....William 11:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS + details regarding the incident are far too premature at this stage. Condolences to those affected, -- MST ☆R ^{(Happy New Year!)} 11:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tragic event, but happens all the time, sadly. Possibly due to the movie shooting is why this was made. Violates WP:NOTNEWS, and has just about as much relevance as 2012 Oakland hit and run (has happened already). Zappa O Mati 16:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~STRONG~~ Weak Keep Article is properly sourced, even has sources from international news organizations. This passes WP:NEVENTS, WP:GNG, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE. WP:INDEPTH. Also keep per WP:RAPID JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep because it passes WP:GNG but doesn't seem to be a big event. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why our guidelines are tagged with a notation that they're "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." A topic that's received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject usually is sufficiently notable, but this is an exception. (As discussed, the event received such coverage because of its coincidental proximity to an earlier event, not because it was highly noteworthy in and of itself.) We mustn't blindly adhere to the letter of WP:GNG instead of recognizing the spirit. —David Levy 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. As JayJay said, the article is properly sourced and meets the WP:GNG; the question (as was the question with 2012 Webster, New York shooting) is rather or not this is appropriate for Wikipedia. Like with the Webster shooting, I think it is too early to tell, but since it meets the GNG, we ought to keep it for now. Re-nom if it is later shown to be insignificant. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DavidLevy: this wouldn't be receiving nearly the same amount of press if it hadn't happened in Aurora. Sorry to say, but this looks like another domestic dispute gone wrong. I'll be happy to revise my assessment should other information become available, but I don't see the need for an article right now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait the full week before making a determination on this AfD. It's too early to tell whether this is going to turn out to be notable. Right now this look like a nonnotable event that doesn't merit its own article (although it might belong on a list of shootings). However, there's still very little information available about the background of this event. Let's wait a few days (at least) to see what develops. --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this particualr shooting is more than run-of-the-mill crime. --Orlady (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait/comment - I'll have to agree with what Orlady said above. It's just too early to see the lasting effects, if any, the event will have. There has been more than enough sources, however, if the July 2012 shooting in the same city did not happen, then this event will only have routine coverage. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - and renominate in a weeks time if no major coverage is done. It is way to early to talk about lasting effects and coverage. However it doesnt fail WP:GNG so in that my !vote on the next afD will likely be Keep. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now That the shooting took place in the same city as the Dark Knight shooting has given a wide variety of sources. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 23:36, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Delete for now If it turns out to be notable in its own right, not just "newsworthy" by association, it can be rewritten. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this incident is particularly notable as these things go. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayJay. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as events like this happen with (admittedly disturbing) regularity. Police respond to incidents like this frequently, and there's nothing particularly exceptional about these events aside from the fact that they occurred in the same town as another, larger mass shooting. Per WP:NOTNEWS, I advise deletion. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 03:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP FOR NOW -- For at least the next two weeks. Too little is currently known about whether there were enough similarities between this and the July 2012 Aurora incident to make this story newsworthy in the long run. There are also significant unanswered questions as to the relevance of this incident to the ongoing nationwide discussion/debates concerning availability of weapons vs. gun control, that has been a highly significant ongoing news story ever since the December mass shooting in Newtown, CT. Petronius2 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what do you base the assertion that "too little is currently known about whether there were enough similarities between this and the July 2012 Aurora incident"? What evidence is there of any significant similarities beyond "shooting that occurred in Aurora"? Are you arguing that the article should be kept in case some heretofore unknown connection comes to light? —David Levy 02:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Incident is covered in the New York Times, BBC news, USA Today, the Times of India, and the Huffington Post. ^King Jakob _C 01:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No new coverage in the last week; these kinds of standoffs happen all the time. Nothing resembling the theater shooting besides occurring in the same city limits as it, this would be only of solely local interest in other circumstances. Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS PianoDan (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Soft delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. There seems to be no reason to believe that coverage will be significantly sustained. If later it is found that coverage was sustained, the article can be recreated. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and one event policies. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The connection with the 2012 event is too tenuous to warrant an article. Agree that NOTNEWS also applies. —Ed!^(talk) 16:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Jucchan (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trim to 1 or 2 sentences and put it the 2012 article with the other related incidents with an anchor. Leave the history in a re-direct in case it becomes more notable--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; strong delete - sadly, just more American murders. Not really connected to 2012 mass shooting, itself an act of an individual.Parkwells (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2013 (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.