Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. This decision was based on more than numbers; the keep opinions, as I read them, failed to show how this incident rose above typical street violence. J04n(talk page) 01:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This event has officially been described as a "flare up of street violence", nobody was seriously injured let alone killed. Per the talk page that this happened on Mother's Day seems to be more coincidental than deliberate, and that was the only thing that made this newsworthy outside the city it took place in. In short I'm not seeing anything in the article or news reports to indicate why this event in encyclopedically notable Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Was watching this story after the article was created to see if it was going anywhere, and while it has international attention due to Mother's Day, it doesn't have enduring coverage as effective it was unfortunate violence in a low income urban area. Given that there's been enough time to assess the story as more one of local news, it doesn't belong on WP per NOTNEWS. Editors are free to start a Wikinews article for this. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not intended to be a police blotter, nor a permanent record of every news story ever to hit the wires. While I am sure that this event was quite significant to those involved in it, there does not (as yet) seem to be any evidence that this shooting will have any particular enduring social or political import. It's one more shooting in a country where shootings are a routine news staple. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Keep for now... I think that there is enough content and RS cited to support this article at this time. I have a hard time believing that the perpetrators did not know it was mother's day and there was no connection to the shooting directed at a mother's day parade. I would like to see how this article develops and think that any decision to delete it should be stayed until either the shooters are caught and it is clear that there wasn't a specific connection to mother's day or three months have elapsed without catching the shooters or any other major development. Technical 13 (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter if it was tied to Mother's Day. It has been called "street crime", which is routine unfortunately in those parts. It had a spurt of primary source coverage, but nothing enduring now compared to major crimes eg the Sandy Hook shooting or the Boston MArathon bombing. This is exactly the case NOTNEWS covers. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only factor setting this "event" apart from any other fight on the street is that it happened on Mothers' Day. This does not make the event significant. The date of Mothers' Day isn't even consistent in the English speaking world and so I can't see how it really matters that it happened at that time. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 13:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This IMO was what WP:NOTNEWS was envisioned to defend the project against; routine newswire stories. It wasn't a terrorist attack, it was spillover from gang violence, which it not all that uncommon in urban America. Sad, but true. If you look at an event and all you can say about it is a recitation of where-it-happened, who-did-it, etc... then what you have is a news article, not an encyclopedia entry. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're not a newspaper. I'm guessing that this will never become suitable for an article, but if it did, one could be (re)created then. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notnews Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It is not common for a mass shooting with so many casualties to occur at a parade or a public event such as this. Even though nobody died, it is still a pretty serious incident that has gotten a lot of media coverage, nationally and internationally, and will probably receive more coverage and attention over the next days, and possibly weeks and months. There are articles for very minor school shooting incidents where only several people got injured: Pine Middle School shooting, SuccessTech Academy shooting. We also don't know the motive behind this attack, even though it could be gang-related. Cyanidethistles (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. I cannot see any indication of notability. As has been said, it only really made the news because of the date and the fact that it was during a parade. With only minor injuries, this is hardly a notable event. — Richard BB 14:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The ideal coverage this gets in an encyclopedia is about one sentence long. Shii (tock) 15:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep/merge - I think it deserves a mention here.--82.8.226.105 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable incident that satisfies requirements for an article on Wikipedia, in my view. Jusdafax 17:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument for retention. Tarc (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as events go this is a relatively routine news story, which is not what Wikipedia is for. In addition, despite the wide range of sources presented, the majority of them are merely quotes/rehashings of other stories on the event, largely from the New Orleans-based Times-Picayune—an indicator that the event likely doesn't have any national or international impact. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if we had an article for every non-lethal shooting in America we'd be swamped. This has only been given any coverage because of Mother's Day. No-one died, some morons shot at people and that happens every single day in the US. This isn't worthy of an article I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a run-of-the-mill shooting. Sorry to be frank, but that's...what it is. Theopolisme (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Are you kidding me? This has been a very well-publicized incident and plainly passes WP:GNG. I am quite aghast at the level of societal bias we have when the Boston Marathon bombings cause the shutdown of an entire city, but a mass shooting of this type arouses barely a murmur, a shrug, and a $10,000 reward. We can't counter this bias by ignoring a lack of attention, but in this case, we need merely not magnify it further by ignoring perfectly good sources. This is not "routine news coverage" on the level of the police blotter and obituaries in one local paper which is what should be what we have in mind when that is spoken of. Wnt (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I share Wnt's incredulity. Those urging deletion are unconvincing, to say the least. Can't help but wonder what the reaction will be from many of the deletion !votes should the shooters prove to be Muslims. Jusdafax 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if they're Muslims or not. This appears at the moment to be unplanned and spontaneous violence which killed no one. Shii (tock) 23:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hilarious in the extreme for you to call out the entries of others as "unconvincing, when your own is boilerplate WP:ITSNOTABLE. Tarc (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You ignore the point, of course, so let me ask you directly, Tarc, if your reaction would be any different if this shooting proves to be Muslim terrorists? Jusdafax 03:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What has anybody's religion got to do with this? Thryduulf (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why answer a question with a question? It's directed to Tarc, but you may answer it as well, if you wish, with a yes or a no: Would you change your vote if the shooters prove to be Muslim terrorists? Jusdafax 04:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The religion, race and nationality of everybody involved is completely irrelevant to this incident, so my !vote will not change if the alleged perpetrators are affiliated with any or no religion. Why does it matter to you? Thryduulf (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no secondary sources, though. Everything so far is primary (news reporting) sourcing, and fails the GNG. It's got a very local range of impact. This is the epitomy of where the lines must be drawn to avoid violating NOTNEWS. --MASEM (t) 06:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.154.175 (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable incident that satisfies requirements for an article on Wikipedia, in my view--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument for retention. Tarc (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NOTNEWS is to "protect" against articles on stories that make the news only in a small region (thus technically meet the GNG since at least 2 sources have covered it) and stories that are completely predictable (routine) in nature. An example of the second type is a (regular season) sports game that is covered in hundreds of papers merely because it was played as scheduled. When a story draws enough interest to make headlines across the globe, NOTNEWS does not apply. Mass shootings *may* be common (I'm not convinced they are), but they certainly do not normally generate headlines in foreign countries. Media sources have decided this was an extraordinary event. As individuals we may or may not agree, but once our third party sources make the decision an event is not routine (by treating it with unusual levels of coverage), then policy wise the matter is settled - the subject can have an article if someone decides to write one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if without it, a search for "mother's day shooting" on Wiki points (probably innocently) to Dick Cheney's shooting. Lots of minor injuries, no (probable) ties to a larger picture, should fade out of the news cycle quickly. Not much encyclopedic value. At least not yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per NOTNEWS, the encyclopedia should not be used to record every news incident, no matter how much immediate attention they generate. The article can be recreated if and when some long-term significance is demonstrated. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not notable. Corn cheese (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete New Orleans has a murder rate 30x that of my city, write an article on Crime in New Orleans if you want, but until these events stop being routine they will not separately deserve an article. Furious Style (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it had not occurred on Mother's Day, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If we reported every single flare of gang violence, we would have billions of articles, not millions. This one offers no particular encyclopedic value, does not meet any notability guideline and violates our policy against being a news source. Fortunately there was no death or serious injury; if I am missing something, please let me know, but as I see it, we should not even need to discuss this. Go Phightins! 02:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not many gang shootings have 19 people shot or injured at all in the US. Also, this was on the front page of CNN and other big news sources. An average gang-related violent crime that happens almost every minute somewhere in some bad neighborhood in the US does not ever get a mention on any website like CNN or CBS News unless it is a really serious crime where multiple people were killed or injured. Also, three of the shootings are seriously hurt, so at least one person was seriously injured during this attack. Cyanidethistles (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a burst of news, and enduring coverage, the latter which is required to have an article on WP. This happened on Mother's Day, a Sunday, and for all practical purposes a relatively slow news day. It was a very sad event, no question, and because of it happening at a Mother's Day parade seems to make it all more tragic. Of course that will generate coverage across the globe. But as has been shown, the shooting was street violence motivated, no more "routine" than other violent crimes. Mere coverage, even internataion, is not sufficient to carry an article, as we require secondary coverage. All the reporting so far have been primary sources, simply recapping events and the impact. Now, if this were like, say, the Sandy Hook shooting, which caused US to turn back to gun control debate, armed guards at schools, etc. etc. that may be something. I've not seen a peep about how the US, even New Orleans, may be impacted by this. This is exactly NOTNEWS. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly dispute that misreading of "NOTNEWS". "Routine" news coverage happens when the local paper prints obituaries and the score from the local high school sports game. This coverage is not routine but serious. Furthermore, the coverage becomes secondary as soon as news outlets start citing multiple competitors' reports about various details of the case, which is a bar long since passed. Wnt (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is routine. You should familiarize yourself with the Mardi Gras violence that happens every year in New Orleans, their murder rate, and the amount of young children killed by stray bullets on a yearly basis in the city. Angry Lampshade (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a run of the mill shooting. The date is relevant and the press coverage is significant. You can scream NOTNEWS all day, but I'm not buying it. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is the date relevant to the event (not the coverage of it)? What makes this not a run-on-the-mill shooting? Feel free to shout as loudly and as long as you want, but it wont make a difference. Thryduulf (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant because multiple secondary sources independent of the subject are covering it. We should be humiliated enough to follow the media bias that says that attacks on some people are so much less important than attacks on others, but we certainly have no reason to ignore real coverage of an event when it exists. Wnt (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
News reports simply recapping the events and followup (sampling through what's at the top of gnews) are not secondary sources - they are primary. I've not seen (doesn't mean it doesn't exist) reports that comment in depth on the event, just saying that it happened. There's not transformative nature to these sources. --MASEM (t)
    • 19 people getting injured in a single attack is not a typical run-of-the-mill shooting. Also it is receiving a lot of coverage on CNN now, and on the Associated Press. This is because this is a high-profile incident. Cyanidethistles (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you take into account that the majority of those injuries were not sustained from bullets, then yes, it is typical and run-of-the-mill, especially in New Orleans. You need to familiarize yourself with the level of gun violence in America before you start making claims like that. Angry Lampshade (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: According to [1] the Mayor, City Council, chief of police and several hundred people from the community turned out the next day to rally at the site of the shootings. I say that is notable in its own right. By comparison to entertainment events that routinely receive coverage, that is a huge, nationally notable event. Why should we be embarrassed to cover the events that shape a city's historic image? Wnt (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop making this into a personal crusade, it's clouding your judgment. You know absolutely nothing about New Orleans if you think a rally against a shooting in New Orleans is an event that shapes the "city's historic image." Both this type of shooting and this type of rally happens on a very routine basis in New Orleans. This event is absolutely not noteworthy. Angry Lampshade (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball playoffs also occur on a routine basis. Should we not cover them, because they're not noteworthy? (And believe you me, I find them a lot less noteworthy than this! I don't know why anybody needs to hold a new one since they have more of them on tape than they could ever watch anyway) Wnt (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the ITN nomination "According to this, 8,583 people were killed by firearms in the USA in 2011. That's about 23 people killed by firearms in the US every day. This "shooting" isn't even a glitch, it's business as usual." The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear: it's not up to us to judge why things get notable - not even baseball games. We should simply allow the documentation of reliably sourced content by those interested when they have the sources they need. Your OR is fascinating but apparently the public sees a difference between a small private shooting and a big public one. Wnt (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my OR, it's fact. Over 8,000 people were killed in a year in the US as a result of firearms. And you certainly have been clear, all over this page. And yes, sections of the US public certainly may see this as a significant public event. It appears the majority of the rest don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas, of course, there is perfect unanimity that SummerSlam 2003 was something of universally valued importance. Are we playing a game of majority-rule "is it interesting to me or not" in these AfDs nowadays? Wnt (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"there is perfect unanimity" who said that? I didn't. But don't worry, there are plenty of opportunities to find you making your points all over the page now. And sorry, I meant 8,583 murders not just deaths from firearms.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be dense, baseball playoffs don't happen every day. As pointed out above, firearm deaths happen multiple times every day in America. Taking it another step further, this isn't even noteworthy from a New Orleans perspective. Last year, New Orleans had 193 murders. 0 people died in the Mother's Day shooting, that's considered good for the city. Angry Lampshade (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bazillion videos on YouTube. Some get to be notable news, the vast majority don't, nobody knows why. That doesn't mean we shouldn't cover Kony 2012 anyway. It's not up to us to ask why this one shooting made the world press; it is only up to us to make sure that a Wikipedia article has enough sources to say something with a bit of reliability, which is what the GNG is about. Wnt (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as amply meeting our notability guidelines. I, too, wish this had not been elevated by the media to an event of international notoriety (I just heard an update from the BBC World News radio service) but it has. ElKevbo (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Keep"" It doesn't seem to be dieing down. (Hopefully it won't. But that is personal opinion.) Dean p foster (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That it was on Mother's Day seems incidental to the event, and now that we have flushed out all the facts, it seems short of our expectations for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? A report about this shooting that came out two hours ago is the top trending story on Fox News' national site [2] detailing new information about the shooter's criminal record, ballistic evidence, injuries to victims, police funding ... all sorts of stuff. How many days does something have to be in the top national news before people will admit "enduring" notability? (provided it isn't a WWE pay-per-view match or something important, that is) Wnt (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be crystal clear, consider SummerSlam (2003) - one of Wikipedia's Featured Articles, our best content, the kind of stuff any one of us can only hope to equal in our writing someday. According to the article's lead, "SummerSlam (2003) was a professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event produced by World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and presented by Stacker 2's YJ Stinger. It took place on August 24, 2003 at the America West Arena in Phoenix, Arizona.[2] It was the 16th annual SummerSlam event and starred wrestlers from the Raw and SmackDown! brands.". Now tell me, what makes that event so much more notable or worthwhile to include than this one?
Before anybody even starts with the "OTHERSTUFF" nonsense, bear in mind I am not referring to some accidental case of a rule violation there, but our best stuff, subject to Featured Ad Review at any time of day or night, proudly displayed on our main index of the best Wikipedia can offer. Its presence is not an accident - it is notable. And it is valid to compare this event to that one. Wnt (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources about a significant part of a notable topic (WWE). Here with have extensively duplicated coverage in multiple primary sources about an event that was not a significant part of any larger notable topic (not significant to the date, the city or even gun violence in the city). It was a significant part of the parade, but that parade is not notable (the only reason anyone not taking part, watching it or organising it were even aware of its existence was because of the shooting). Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? That wrestling article is almost all stuff from "WrestleView" and "PW Torch". You're saying forget the New York Times, forget CNN, we only WrestleView and PW Torch because those are reliable secondary sources??? And we wonder why people make fun of Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"You're saying forget the New York Times, forget CNN," - who said that? Many of your replies contain your own spin, probably not such a good idea. Dragging other items into this debate is fruitless, discuss this on its own merits. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as wrestling journalism goes, The Pro Wrestling Torch basically is what the New York Times is to general news. And WrestleView is roughly CNN (maybe a notch less). Also, the article has an Aftermath section, and enduring notability (I just watched it last month). Granted, I'm a wrestling fan, not a general reader, but do you really think tragedy fans will remember this shooting in a decade, if the news repeats it enough in the first few days? It might not even stick with the victims that long. SummerSlam (though fictional) was a culmination of storylines and a new beginning for others. This event (though real) suddenly happened, and then suddenly stopped. The shooters got away and most victims are basically fine. Next week, back to normal. It's the equivalent of any one WWE Velocity episode. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only reason news sources picked the story up was because it happens on Mother's Day, something which had absolutely no influence on the course of events. Therefore, not worthy. These types of events happen on a routine basis in New Orleans. Massive Mardi Gras shootings happen all the time and gun violence has helped give the city one of the highest murder rates on earth. I recommend you go check out nola.com (home of the Times-Picayune) and their crime section. If Wikipedia would allow an article like this to exist, then most of what's in that crime section would be eligible. Angry Lampshade (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, if you have one source you're halfway to notable, though some might quibble about secondary/independent issues. For all I know there may be an opportunity to write ten or twenty articles a year about crime in New Orleans. If somebody does it you might have a chance to suggest merging some of such smaller articles together. If there's room, it wouldn't hurt. But there's a difference between managing the information contributed to us and discarding it. Wnt (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should focus your attention on an expansion of the crime section of New Orleans wikipedia page, not making a page for every multiple-victim shooting in the city Angry Lampshade (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we don't have a page Crime in New Orleans, and as the sourcing for this one is sufficient for an article, we could rename this one to that. I don't support that because obviously that article should be a very large one, with topics like this pushed to separate sub-articles, but at least it would not be deletion, which is just ridiculous. In any case, you've reminded me to save the present version; I can start that article with this text verbatim if this is closed as delete, and toss in a couple of other low hanging fruit to get the ball rolling. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You most certainly cannot just copy the text verbatim. That is a copyright violation. You can, however, request a copy of the article and I will be happy to provide it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't think you can "start the article with this text verbatim" as that would (a) be making a point and (b) fall foul of speedy deletion criterion G4 ("A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion...."). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be free to AfD "Crime in New Orleans" if you want (indeed I expect you to). It would be up to someone else to decide who was making a point. I would have to improve it at least marginally in order that it actually be about that title. Wnt (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you misread (or misrepresented) what I said. If you recreated deleted material verbatim, it wouldn't be AfD, it would be speedy deletion time. Please read my text more carefully. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I read it doesn't mean I believe it. Wnt (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask you to "believe it", where did I write that? If you recreate deleted material then it will be speedy deleted (see G4) and you may be blocked for deliberate disruption (indeed I wouldn't do this myself, but would expect someone else to). Just letting you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Normally I would vote keep for incidents like this, but nobody was killed and not that many injuries, if it was more like 2012 Aurora shooting I would vote yes, but it isn't. There was very mininal news coverage anyways JayJayWhat did I do? 15:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A straight-forward WP:NOTNEWS case. Unless reports show up that put this in some sort of meaningful context rather than simply detailing the event, this is just routine news coverage. National or international coverage does not magically make it anything but routine.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I did put an hour or so into getting facts and citations straight and publishing which to me is good practice anyway at this point. I just saved some of this to my sandbox archive, so it can go I suppose, and I can help roll this into some other article in the future if necessary. --Phaedrx (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable incident, as defined by international media coverage over a number of days. The date is significant to people, as is the number of people wounded, even if none died. This is a turning point for politics in the city of New Orleans, and although in magnitude, the shooting does not seem as tragic as a Newtown, Aurora, or Viginis Tech, it has attracted a lot of attention worldwide, as people are seeing their way of life going down the drain, one mass shooting at a time. Future readers will indeed wish to revisit this data, and Wikipedia should help them hold it in memory. Additionally, i happen to think that the more articles Wikipedia contains, the better for all internet searchers. If bandwidth and storage are not a problem, then please keep the article on the basis that maintaining a file of data is important, especially when it is accompanied, as this one is, by an excellent reference log for future researchers. 70.36.137.19 (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not in the UK, barely a sniff of it. Also wasn't Mother's Day in the UK either. With over 8,000 murders per year from shootings, why do we need articles for non-fatal shootings? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP is not here to be a replacement for google. There's also a dedicated Wikinews specifically for allowed editors to make articles on events like this that do not fit the scope of an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a front page article article today in The New York Times regarding the shootings, their aftermath and the culture of second line parades. In my view, notability and sourcing are more than confirmed. Arguments for deletion of the article don't carry an ounce of weight: this is hardly a run-of-the-mill shooting but a major sociological event of continuing interest. Suggest we close this as a keep and move on. Jusdafax 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. It's still a primary source about the event. It does support a suggestion of a merge target at Second line (parades), since that's basically what the article is really about (the potential for violence in those, and our WP article on the parades has a section about violence already). --MASEM (t) 18:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event is now notable for people treating it as irrelevant, even though it's the the largest mass shooting in the United States where the shooters are still at large. [3] [4] USchick (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it is notable due to its irrelevance? Congratulations, that is the first I've seen that argument used at AFD ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! :) USchick (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Or more to a point, these types of articles point to a better larger topic like the second line parades or Crime in NO that would be a completely valid target for information about this parade. All we can say on the topic is repeating primary sources while it remains its own article, but in either of those topics, you have a way to discuss the parade not as a news event but perhaps one of the more visible examples of the problem. The shooting itself remains irrelevant in terms of "permanance" of information - most will have forgotten this by next year. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Until such article is created, this one already exists and is already notable with international attention. USchick (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...the largest mass shooting in the United States where the shooters are still at large"? I'd like to see a better source for this than a piece in the 'Comment is free' section of the Guardian, written by the 'creative director at The Smoking Section'. [5] Incidentally, this would logically imply that catching the perpetrators would make it less notable... AndyTheGrump (talk)
(ec) No, Andy, then we'd need to keep it because it was #7 on the "List of longest times the perpetrators of a mass shooting in the US took to be captured", or "Previous holders of the record for longest outstanding mass-shooting perpetrator capture evasion". Get real. Begoon talk 18:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Notability doesn't come from "international attention". We need secondary sources on the event and such do not exist yet. And just because an article doesn't exist doesn't mean we need to keep this around. That's why I've put above that one could have a merge-redirect to the second line parade article, keep this as a search term, and be set there. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So if someone dies, will that make it more notable? International attention is important in this case, because the US population has been desensitized, which is what makes this event notable. 19 people were shot and no one cares.USchick (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability means that we need secondary sources - straight news reporting and recapping is not that. Most of these articles just recently linked use the incident of a larger problem of crime, but not going into detail about the shooting, thus leaving them as primary sources about it. If there was an actual death, we have no idea how that would have been considered in the larger story, but I would suspect that everyone has called this "routine" street violence that these second line parades can bring about and nothing out of the ordinary, a single death wouldn't have changed the report. That's why notability is based on what the sources give us, not what actually happened nor based on body court or injury tallies. We're looking for enduring secondary coverage of the topic, not a burst of international coverage. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    19 people weren't shot, 19 were injured. This is an example of the media playing up injuries and deliberately omitting how most of them were injured, which wasn't by bullets. Angry Lampshade (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that it's a recent event, let's give it time to develop. USchick (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We've given it time to development, it's been 3 days. Compared to other truly notable events, this is a waning tail and definitely a sign its not meeting notability or NOTNEWS. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this shooting less notable than the 2011 IHOP shooting? USchick (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't, that's why OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the proper argument to use , particularly judging against a start-class article that's over 2 years old. I've nominated that for deletion too (and yes, even though there were deaths including police officials). It was a "routine" crime. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In that cease, you may want to nominate similar articles 2012 Seattle cafe shooting spree, Frankstown Township Shooting. I think we should wait to see how this event is resolved before making a decision to delete it. USchick (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. And the creation of articles like all these was brought up as an issue at ANI when this (the Mothers Day shooting) was created. People want to race to create news articles before they've understood if it is an encyclopedic topic, and most of the time they are not (as all 4 examples show). Wikinews exists for those people that want to really write breaking stories, we're here to write encyclopedic topics, which some events will merit but not all. Hence NOTNEWS. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary source, discussion of the event [[6]] USchick (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary in discussion what the media/US calls terrorism and what it considers routine crime, but nothing secondary on the shooting itself, mostly an example/name drop due to its recentness. Now, there is a potential if this starts a huge long debate on what exactly is terrorism, but frankly that's crystal-balling the importance of this event in the larger picture. Particularly when as others have pointed out the injuries were in the resulting panic and not actual gunshot wounds. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Update [7] USchick (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The conversation is gaining momentum with secondary sources [8] ongoing daily coverage [9] and new developments [10] USchick (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That first source is not secondary coverage of the event, but of media reporting on violence in America; there's no further depth of coverage of the incident itself. And as local papers, that's not sufficient to judge for ongoing coverage. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The source uses media coverage about this event to engage the public in a bigger conversation about violent crime. That by itself makes the event notable. The event also brought international attention to violent crime in New Orleans, which is something that other similar events didn't do. It's an ongoing event with continuing coverage. Can you please clarify what kind of in-depth coverage we're looking for? Is there an example from other recent notable events? You must have something in mind that the rest of us are not aware of, and I think it would help to clarify things for future discussions. USchick (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the event were truly notable, there would be questions about motivations, discussions of the people involved, etc., etc. (using the Boston Marathon or Sandy Hook shootings as clearly notable events). Here, once the event was classified as street violence, no one really talked about motivation as it was simple "street crime". Sure the preps were still out on the lam but that's not the same as the details we had on the brothers involved in the bombing or Lanza from the shooting; they were names and faces to be ID'd on TV. You are also pointing out that this event does deserve discussion in larger context, but when you start the article from this point, its very awkward and simply doesn't fit our NOTNEWS encyclopedia very well. Again, I point to the second line parade article where there is a Violence section. The gist of this event ("On May 12, 2013, nineteen people were wounded as a result of street violence gunplay that broke out during a second line parade honoring Mother's Day in New Orleans.") can be summarized to then lead into how this has heightened the attention to street violence in NOLA and associated with second line parades. We can wikilink to news stories or to Wikinews if the reader really needs to read more on the event, but in the broader context of an encyclopedia whose focus is on permanency of topics and not just what's in the news, the event itself doesn't have sufficient internal coverage to merit a stand-alone article. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources talk about violence. That's the secondary discussion taking place. Even the Dalai Lama had something to say about it. [11] USchick (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's about the violence, not about the event itself outside of highlight the problem of violence. The reports are still primary with respect to the event itself. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes all notability tests.--Avala (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Tarc and User:Dennis Brown. Begoon talk 18:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - a major shooting event which has received considerable coverage, and according to the article, 'the largest mass shooting in the United States where the shooters were still at large'. What's supposed to make it run-of-the-mill - the fact that no one has died? That's not a criterion for notability, coverage is, and this passes. Ironically enough, some of the coverage has been criticising the media for not giving more attention to this story - but that factor in itself is one of the things that makes it notable. Robofish (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add, I find something particularly disturbing about the argument that this is a non-notable event because shootings are common in New Orleans, implying that if it had taken place somewhere else it would deserve an article. I have to disagree - IMO, shootings on this scale deserve an article wherever they take place and whoever the victims are. If anything, that argument suggests that we have a serious systemic bias in our coverage of criminal acts, against covering events in supposedly dangerous places and in favour of those in supposedly safe ones. In any case though, that's not part of the notability criterion: significant coverage is, and that's why this event is notable. Robofish (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes - a nice bit of synthesis creeps into the lede with "in spite of" linking two different sources. Not that the source for 'the largest mass shooting in the United States where the shooters were still at large' should pass WP:RS anyway, as I've already noted: 'Comment is free' in the Guardian? Fact-checked? I doubt it very much... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, notability requires enduring secondary coverage, not just coverage. There's no question the event was reported across the world, it has just had a very short tail as most news stories end up doing. Also, I find the justification on the stat "the largest mass shooting where the perps are still at-large" an extreme form of trainspotting, particularly again that calling it a "mass shooting" is a extremely biased misnomer (the parade goers were not being shot at, there were running and were injured in the chaos). And its the media that's pointed out that this is normal "street violence", not us; they're the ones that called this routine for us, effectively. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To give an example of the level of enduring notability, the New York Times reported that two shootings in 2006 caused the city to charge security fees of up to $7500, which came close to outlawing the second line parades,[12] but that city officials in this case had taken a different tack and were embracing them as part of the genuine New Orleans tradition. If people remember shootings from 2006, people will remember this shooting also. If the 2006 ones changed policy, this one may also have political effects. However, our standard for enduring notability should not be, and for most topics and events is not, nearly as high as what this shooting actually attains. Wnt (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's been consensus for years to require enduring notability (indeed, NEVENTS is rather recent but went though all the RFCs to get the language right and follow in NOTNEWS' and WP:N's footsteps). Also, enduring notability is not about rememberance, it is about sources. The fact there were fines before again relates to the tradition of second line parades, thus boosting the importance in that article, but doing little about this event. --MASEM (t) 03:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is something interesting in NEVENTS: "Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, 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, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete. " Pity nobody read that sooner. Wnt (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A sentiment easily countered with "a pity the article creator did not read WP:Recentism first. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re the point about enduring notability - I agree, but surely by the same token, it's too early to determine that this event is non-notable. I don't see the need to rush to deletion less than a week after the event. This always seems to happen with articles on current news stories: someone nominates them for deletion while events are still unfolding. The more sensible thing to do is wait a few weeks to see whether the event develops long-term notability. In this case, along those lines, I would be open to reconsidering the article for deletion after some time has passed, if it seems that it was considered to be 'just another street shooting' and doesn't receive long-term attention; but I maintain that it's too early to make that judgement now, and this article should be kept at least for the time being. It can't possibly demonstrate enduring notability when it hasn't yet had the chance to do so. Robofish (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As Tarc points out, these articles shouldn't be created in the first place until the enduring notability has been shown. Unfortunately, it is hard to prevent that front end without restricting a lot more, but there's no reason we can be more aggressive on closing them down when they are clearly a problem. Everything about this story (even now knowing that one of the captured suspects is young adult male) is, unfortunately, what is considered routine crime and the chance of this event becoming any more significant as an event in of itself. (Discussions on such crimes with the city or these second line parades, on the other hand...). There's a slim chance this could break into something more important, but that requires crystal ball guessing on future events. Other events could go either way and in those cases I'd definitely be more patient but here, this was pretty much dismissed by the press as routine crime on day 1. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A suspect has been arrested, so that puts to rest the "largest shooting involving a suspect at large" meme. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is clearly established by widespread press coverage. Everyking (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Widespread press coverage is not equal to significant secondary coverage for notability. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Masem on this and all of their comments on this AFD. North8000 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG REDIRECT to Second line (parades)#Violence - The event did happen it is just not notable per WP:NOTNEWS for it's own article, it is however notable to the Second line parade. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; we need to discuss a proposal for a cooling-off period (Dennis Brown's 6-hour suggestion sounds reasonable) before the creation of an article. Much media coverage is attributable to the 24-hour news cycle. Miniapolis 02:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A cooling off period is an excellent plan. For anyone interested in developing the idea further I did write an essay about crime-related articles some time ago, and added something similar as a suggestion, though I thought three weeks might be more appropriate. At present it's a bit skewed towards English law and the countries using that system, but could be expanded to include other jurisdictions. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a notable incident, as defined by international media coverage over a number of days. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • International coverage lasted only a day, and in any case "a number days" is not enduring coverage required by WP:N / WP:NEVENT. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By now this article easily meets the General Notability Guideline. Cardamon (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no secondary sources about the event itself, thus the GNG is failed (which required significant coverage in secondary sources). Violence in New Orleans and assorted with second ling parades, yes, but not this event. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a news report, primary sources would include eyewitness accounts, and also photos, videos, and sound recordings of events. They would also include writings that are entirely based on photographs, videos and sound recordings of events.
Things that are written about or in reaction to primary sources (but not things that just copy primary sources) are secondary sources. For example, much of this piece in The Nation, by a reporter who was shot in the leg, is pretty clearly a primary source. On the other hand, this New York Times article, this article in the Christian Science Monitor, and this other article in the Christian Science Monitor are largely secondary sources. So, multiple secondary sources already exist for this article. Cardamon (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We consider secondary sources to be transformative, so it's not just being one step removed from the eyewitness accounts or the like. We also need to keep in mind that sources can be primary for one topic, and secondary for another. I can't see the NYTimes, but of the other articles, they still remain primary sources about the shooting - reiterating events and not discussing it further in that context. On the topic of crime in New Orleans or second line parades, they are all secondary. This is the point that needs to be made - the bulk of this can be shifted to Wikinews (where there's no NOTNEWS concerns) while an article about second line parades or crime in NO can be expanded, linking to the Wikinews article to provide that background while putting the event into the proper larger context. Most of these articles are treating the event not as a significant event (ala the Boston Marathon bombing) but as a highlight of the city's troubled history with these parades and crime. IT can be discussed on WP in that context (read : just a few sentences + a Wikinews link) in the scope of that larger topic. --MASEM (t) 06:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
>>We consider secondary sources to be transformative ... <<. I can't say that I have ever heard that claim before. Could you link to a policy or guideline saying that? Cardamon (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PSTS and WP:USEPRIMARY. Quoting the former: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". --MASEM (t) 14:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like this? [13] and this? [14] And this? [15][16][17] This story questions how bond is set. [18] There are plenty of secondary discussions taking place about terrorism, violence, inner city crime, second line parades, police corruption, etc. Just because they're not discussing the motive, doesn't mean anything. USchick (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As PRIMARYNEWS points out, it is not the case that any newspaper article is automatically primary, so I'm not saying these sources can't be secondary. But they are secondary about the topics you list (terrorism, crime, etc.). The same articles simply state the shooting in recap, making them primary for the event itself. Again, I want to stress: a brief summary of this event to highlight the problems of NOLA crime or second line parades and violence make complete sense given all these sources, but the event is itself is just one of numerous similar events that we have otherwise undocumented -the only fact that being on Mother's Day brought these problems to international light. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is your opinion, but the sources don't support it. USchick (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Export to wikinews. There is no wikinews transwiki template. Lucy346 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it is Notable (and GNG), I came to wp to get a summary and was surprised to see the AFD. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have previously suggested this should be deleted, but a better suggestion, which is to merge this minor, common, parochial event as a sentence or two into Second line (parades) seems most appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have to concur that as this discussion as progressed, the merge option seems better (though wasn't apparent when it was nominated). --MASEM (t) 05:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a minor event, nor common. It did occur in a locality, as do all events. There is by far sufficient reliable documentation to justify an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article or quit calling this project an endeavor to compile the sum of human knowledge. My76Strat (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIME. There's an article for deletion, but it also points out that this contradicts our content guidelines pretty blatantly. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:5P, which is the principles en.wiki is build on. There's a reason we have several sister projects, including WP, to put content that doesn't fit into en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd like to think that mass shootings in the USA are still notable events. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources are no longer calling it a mass shooting, but street violence with victims caught in the crossfire. Again, this was part of the oversensationalism of the initial reporting of the story. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 22 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2013_Mother%27s_Day_Parade_shooting&oldid=1146598208"