Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Maryville First Baptist Church 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. JForget 21:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Maryville First Baptist Church shooting[edit]

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

A pastor was killed in a shooting. Sad as this is, it is simply another news report of a shooting. These things grab headlines for a few days and then are forgotten. Just because something is newsworthy doesn't make it encyclopedic (WP:NOTNEWS). I can't see here any assertion that this event had wider or ongoing social, cultural or legal significance. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable, then it's because it was reported nationally and beyond. I seem to recall the BBC picked up the story. Other than that, it's just another tragic head-case. Rklawton (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NOT policy states that Wikipedia isn't the place for routine news. It has little else to say about news other than clarifying the difference between an event and persons caught up in an event. I'm pretty sure a pastor getting shot in front of his congregation is without precedent. As a minimum, it's not routine - and so passes the requirements laid out in NOT. Wikipedia:News articles puts a better perspective on news-notability but it's just an essay and not policy. Though I believe this article satisfies even those guidelines. Rklawton (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the time it was news, but since then only local coverage has continued, so it fails per WP:NOTNEWS. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please quote which part of NOT this fails. Rklawton (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The spirit of it. Wikipedia is not a set of hard and fast rules.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - NOT lists the types of news events which should not be published, and this article doesn't come close to those crossing those lines. As a result, it couldn't violate this so called "spirit". Rklawton (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it is true that Wikipedia has "no set of hard and fast rules", then obviously it is not necessary to delete an article for allegedly violating the "spirit" one of these "rules" which is not so "hard and fast". Rklawton (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was a tragic incident, but the passage of the months has shown that this was not any more historically notable than any other homicide. Rklawton is right that the coverage now is all local [1]. A redirect to Maryville, Illinois would be appropriate. Mandsford (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if we're going to delete something for lack of notability, the least we can do is point out where the article fails to satisfy policy. Simply saying an event which received international coverage isn't notable doesn't make it so. No one has been able to say according to *this* criteria in *this* policy, the article isn't notable - yet our notability policies are full of criteria and examples of what events that don't qualify. This just isn't one of them. Rklawton (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because we don't work like that, and no such "policy criteria" exists. If you are referring to the notability guidelines then remember they are guidelines and not rules. In any case the guidelines are supposed to reflect what the community tends to do when it discuses things, they do not proscribe in any way. Personally, I never read them, and I am not obliged to do so.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Had no idea that an article created by an administrator could be the subject for deletion-debate and not be overriden by the administator himself. It exhibits impartiality, which I guess is good and healthy--Ahimsa09 (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Trust me, administrators are no brighter than you or I. They do an excellent job for no remuneration and they volunteer to take on a task that most of us would not want to do. However, similar to that first time you ever realized that your schoolteachers weren't infallible, you eventually see that admins are ordinary people who have taken on an extraordinary workload. Mandsford (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put! Such "extraordinary workload" could also lead to extraordinary lapse or misconceptions or presumptions. Thanksfully, not all minds function alike and the good result is enlightenment. Thus, where there's darkness, light delights.--Ahimsa09 (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the NOT policy (and NOT is policy) provides several examples of news events that do not meet notability guidelines. This article very clearly satisfies the notability requirements listed in NOT, so it should not be deleted. The event received international coverage. And why wouldn't it? I don't think anyone can recall a time when a pastor was murdered during a service in front of his congregation. That makes this a unique event (and therefore notable). I have no doubt this event will be cited should a similar murder ever again occur. Lastly, as a reminder to the closing administrator, the AfD page is not a vote or a consensus building exercise. It is a collection of facts and opinions that the closing administrator should carefully evaluate when making his or her decision. Folks in favor of deletion argue "spirit" (or claim they don't read policy anyway), whereas to me it is clear this event received the appropriate coverage and is sufficiently unique. Rklawton (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 24, 1980, a sniper shot Archbishop Oscar Romero to death as he celebrated Mass at a hospital chapel in San Salvador. Ahimsa09 (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no encyclopedic content. Abductive (reasoning) 10:03, 13 November 2009 (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.