Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Antonio Zambrano-Montes

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. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Antonio Zambrano-Montes[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:1E. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When will people stop using WP as a newspaper? It is not an encyclopedia's function to report on current events, only if those events can be shown to have a lasting impact. Obviously, that cannot be shown within a few days of the event happening... --Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This has been a story that has been read and seen all over the world and prompted a response from the Mexican president. It's being called the Hispanic version of Ferguson with many protests in Pasco and Washington and likely will continue that way. Have you seen how much coverage this story is getting? 98.207.226.90 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I saw that. And my crystal ball tells me that it'll be over a week from now, with perhaps a smattering of coverage if there will be a trial. At this point, classical 1E. --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
so we have to get rid of it now and have to create it again in case it comes back up? Why can't we just let it wait a while to see if it still remains as a big story nationally and then delete it? How come Shooting of Andy Lopez has its article? Not saying that it doesn't warrant one, but it happened in my city and it only received national attention for one day and it eventually became a non story in my city after a few weeks, except for groups of activists. Many people in my own state other than my county and some neighboring areas have probably never heard of the shooting death of Andy Lopez but that gets an article so why can't this one which had received much more coverage and even a response from the PRESIDENT OF MEXICO? 98.207.226.90 (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, my brother just had a baby son. Let's make an article on the kid. It isn't notable now, but you never know what the future might bring, so "Why can't we just let it wait a while to see if"... That's not the way it works. First we determine something is notable. Then we create an article. We're at AfD now, so the onus is on those !voting "keep" to show that this passes WP:GNG now, not "perhaps in the future". As for the shooting of Lopez article, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid during these discussions... --Randykitty (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not news. Should have waited before creating article to see whether this would have long term significance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While not Ferguson-level, this is clearly far more notable than the routine police shooting that doesn't result in commentary from the president of the most populous country in the hemisphere. Pax 07:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft it - Too soon, which is why the draft is suggested. Keep it there for a couple of weeks/months and see if the affects are long lasting. Currently, it doesn't seen that it will have the long standing notability required. - Pmedema (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant and ongoing national and international press coverage.Patapsco913 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC

I admire your foresight; It happened 16 (sixteen...) days ago and yet you already know that there will be "ongoing ... coverage". Wow! --Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a purely local matter, given the comment by Mexican President, monitoring of the situation by federal law enforcement, and further national coverage. --Djembayz (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - per WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNOW. The case is complicated. Let me quote:

Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.

My view is that although that event could pass GNG, there is no way to really know because relevant sources are drowned in the WP:NOTNEWS. We could wait for the dust to settle; if the event is still mentioned in a couple of months, we can recreate then. (and no, "do not delete because it might be recreated, so let's save work" is not a good argument) Tigraan (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This incident has received non-trivial, even in-depth coverage in a variety of reliable international sources of different types, and has been of political interest to the Mexican congress. That clearly puts it in a different league from run of the mill crime stories. True, we don't know for certain that it will receive long lasting coverage, but I think it is not unreasonable to expect that it will. Since the article is solidly based in a variety of non-speculative reliable sources already we should keep. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International coverage. --GRuban (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG Plenty of international news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has adequate coverage in reliable sources. Passes notability standards. Bali88 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would greatly appreciate if the editors !voting "keep" could explain how this does not fail WP:1E. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I readily see how standards/notability can be interpreted differently by different editors, but it is common to have articles for shootings by police that become instantly notorious. I interpret WP:1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." as covering this case. There was "large coverage" of this death.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2015 (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.