Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Parramatta 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 keep. Alex Shih ^Talk 15:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Parramatta shooting[edit]

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

These discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies, so I shall be as full as possible in laying out all of them. This is for an actual discussion about notability.

This individual was given an article following a shooting incident, WP:RAPID applies to state that this individual is not meeting of notability.

One major issue is the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in parts of the background -- there are two sources were published before the stabbing. Who determined the significance of this self-constructed notability other than the article creator?

The subject fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advises writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable. Knee-jerk changes to terrorism legislation does not count it needs wider impact thatn politicial reactions.

Simply appearing in routine news coverage does not equal or equate to being notable, consider WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of the individual it is limited and brief . Going down the list at WP:NOTE, the subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage. Sport and politics (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sport and politics I am flattered you used much of my rationale from a prior AfD for this discussion but it looks really fishy when that happens. I do not want us to be falsely accused of socking or whatever so, please, next time use more of your own words.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable well referenced article on an event meeting WP:CRIME. Hughesdarren (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Ample sourcing in article. Quick news check shows this is still being discussed in the news in 2017 in various angles (e.g. A relative going to Syria - [1]). Quick book check shows multiple books references. Was even a cursory BEFORE done here?Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination states that "This individual was given an article following a shooting incident", but a look at the article shows that Parramatta is the name of a town, not an individual. Looking further in the article, it states, "In November 2015 the Four Corners TV program ran an episode entitled Plan of Attack: The making of a teenage terrorist which documented the chronology of related events prior to the Parramatta shooting." This is what makes notability notable: reliable evidence of attention to the topic from the world at large. The article shows broad worldwide attention following the event, so that in May 2016 the U.S. reported the death of the sister of the perpetrator in Syria. Unscintillating (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW KEEP. Notable attack that passes WP:NCRIME. This is One more in a series of rapidly created, poorly argued, AfD nominations that appear to fail WP:BEFORE, to lack understanding of policies cited, and even to demonstrate Nom's failure to read and evaluate sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2017 (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.