Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Farmington, New Mexico 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. There is disagreement here over the quality of the sourcing in this article but overall I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Farmington, New Mexico shooting[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No lasting significance. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is sad to write "just another US shooting" but that is the fact. Nothing noteworthy here, no ongoing significance, no evidence of WP:LASTING. WWGB (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Ongoing significance"? This isn't an INT item, it's an article. The notability standard for an article is in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources, and there os plenty of such coverage here. Nsk92 (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92; also, it's far too early to be claiming something has no lasting significance. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, from WP:LASTING: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. As noted below, it's only been a day. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While mass shootings are routine and are normalized as part of life in the United States, it's good to keep track of them as a constant reminder of indifference by the wider American society. In addition, there are stand-alone articles with fewer casualties as listed on the list of mass shootings in the United States, so I don't see why not this shouldn't be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.117.78.43 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been a day since this happened; the nominator is being very hasty in his conclusions. As per Nsk, it has passed GNG; it has gotten coverage nationally and internationally (in the UK and Greece, for example). It is also possible we get more coverage, considering the perpetrator has not been named yet. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant rampage shooting with extensive coverage, and lasting notability. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as other have said lasting significance can't really be proven a day after the fact, it definitely has had significance the day of and the through the day after which is when we have nominated. Sources are available for GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its hard to keep track of these shootings in conventional news media. A shooting like this especially with 4 casualties needs to be on the record. Avindratalk 17:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and New Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no WP:SIGCOV, only WP:ROUTINE coverage that does not contribute to notability. No evidence that this currently meets or will ever come close to meeting the requirements of WP:EVENTCRIT. Keep votes run the gamut of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: among others, I see WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:NEWSUBJECT, WP:ITSINTHENEWS, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebiguglyalien (talk • contribs) 2023-05-16T19:24:29 (UTC)
"There's no SIGCOV" are we looking at the same topic? There has been coverage by national and international sources. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:ROUTINE coverage that amounts to a news story. To be significant coverage, it has to be more than "this thing happened at this time and this place". See WP:N and WP:NEVENTS for what's expected. The bar is a lot higher than this, as it should be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

only WP:ROUTINE coverage that does not contribute to notability Are you equating a mass murder event with a press release, an award being received, or other run-of-the-mill events like a cat being stuck in a tree? Because those are the examples given, and I don't see them being in the same league whatsoever. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that it's not a news report? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you reading what you link to or just plastering ALLCAPSREDIRECTS and hoping for the best? Because WP:NOTNEWS is a circular reference to WP:ROUTINE, which brings us back to you equating a mass murder to a press release, sports match, film premiere, etc. BTW, as to WP:LASTING, we're still seeing updates on this event onto the second day, with more details about the event itself, additional witness statements, victim details, and an ongoing investigation into what caused the perpetrator to actually do what they did. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the event is routine. I don't care what the event is, because that's not what the GNG considers. I'm saying the coverage is routine. I've posted a source assessment below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what the event is, because that's not what the GNG considers. So the examples are there because...? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The murder of three people is never routine, even in the gun-happy United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's Lake Wales, Oklahoma City, Sumter, Birmingham, Bolingbrook, Cocoa, or New Richmond, to name a few. I'm not sure why this shooting is any different. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled. Are you saying these murders aren't notable because those murders haven't yet been covered in Wikipedia, which is a permanent work in progress? This is a complete fallacy which gets trotted out from time to time. Wikipedia has not yet covered all the notable events in history and likely never will. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment:

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Thebiguglyalien
CNN		WP:PRIMARY source. Only relays the sequence of events and gives quotes from people involved. No analysis or interpretation that would amount to significant coverage.	✘ No
KOAT	~ Local reporting varies in reliability.	Local reporting has limited use for WP:GNG. WP:PRIMARY source. Only relays the sequence of events and gives quotes from people involved. No analysis or interpretation that would amount to significant coverage.	✘ No
Durango Herald	~ Local reporting varies in reliability.	Local reporting has limited use for WP:GNG. WP:PRIMARY source. Only relays the sequence of events and gives quotes from people involved. No analysis or interpretation that would amount to significant coverage.	✘ No
NBC News		WP:PRIMARY source. Only relays the sequence of events and gives quotes from people involved. No analysis or interpretation that would amount to significant coverage.	✘ No
The Guardian	The Guardian is to be considered on a case by case basis, but there is no immediate reason to question the reliability.	WP:PRIMARY source. Only relays the sequence of events and gives quotes from people involved. No analysis or interpretation that would amount to significant coverage.	✘ No
NBC News		WP:PRIMARY source. Only relays the sequence of events and gives quotes from people involved. No analysis or interpretation that would amount to significant coverage.	✘ No
USA Today		WP:PRIMARY source. Only relays the sequence of events and gives quotes from people involved. This one is a bit better because it goes into detail about an investigation, but it still lacks analysis and interpretation.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

This source assessment is based on the sources currently in the article. If there are any sources that count toward WP:GNG, they should be added to the article. If not, then the article should be deleted. I do not believe that such sources exist, hence my vote to delete. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you've labeled as WP:PRIMARY are actually primary sources. But at least I see where your confusion is around this, except for the two local sources, those are all WP:SIGCOV. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper reports at the time of the event are usually (though not always) primary sources. Statements of facts as they're developing and eyewitness accounts as about as primary as it gets. WP:PRIMARYNEWS goes into detail on this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Would you be willing to re-check this given that the number of sources has increased by over double the original amount? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to read every source in detail like I did with those first seven, but I'm not seeing anything promising. Are there any that provide analysis, study, interpretation, etc? Are there any that suggest compliance with WP:EVENTCRIT? Are there any that provide WP:SIGCOV instead of just WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources? If no such sources exist, then this article should be deleted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe that there is anything to be checked, then feel free not to as we have different opinions about this. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This shooting has lasting significance as it is a perfect example of this phenomenon. More than 100 rounds of ammunition were fired between the suspect and police, with people being shot at random and the weapon that was used was an AR-15. Sad to say that this article exists in the first place, but it fits the description of these specific types of attacks in that country. It is not WP:ROUTINE and since a lot more information is available now, it passes WP:SIGCOV. Jennytacular (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article at the time the deletion discussion started was just a stub article with four sentences and three sources. Since then, the article has increased to twenty-four sentences and eighteen sources from thirteen different news organizations. I believe that this expansion resolves the issues that have been brought up. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The event has received a deep coverage by the sources. Also, "it may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect." --Mhhossein ^talk 04:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is now more than enough reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2023 (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.