Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin-East Magnet High School 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 merge to Austin-East High School. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Austin-East Magnet High School shooting[edit]

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

Austin-East Magnet High School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relatively minor criminal act, should be a section of the main Austin-East High School page –DMartin 21:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –DMartin 21:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Way too early to nominate for deletion, details are still emerging. Multiple victims including a police officer, it's a top news story right now in the UK and getting international coverage. Inexpiable (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The details are now in, and it's just one dead and one injured. Not particularly notable for a school shooting. Love of Corey (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the merged section becomes too big, it can be split out into a new article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The details are unclear at the moment, but this incident did happen at a school and it involved a fatality. That's fairly unusual, even for the U.S. There is a reasonable likelihood that the event will receive sustained coverage. The matter can be revisited in a few months to see if the coverage has ceased or not. Nsk92 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have a number of incidents at schools that left only one fatality and no articles for it. Love of Corey(talk) 00:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Millard South High School shooting comes to mind. –DMartin 00:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it is a crying shame that we still don't have a separate article about that one, given that "the shooting was the deadliest school shooting in Nebraska's history". Nsk92 (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There were shootings in Nebraska that were way deadlier than that one, e.g. Westroads Mall shooting and the Charles Starkweather crime spree. "Deadliest school shooting" may be an interesting tidbit, but that alone isn't enough sufficient basis for notability. Love of Corey (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the cited article, there was only one other school shooting in Nebraska's recorded history, and that one involved one injury and no fatalities. So while saying "the shooting was the deadliest school shooting in Nebraska's history" is literally true, it doesn't help make your case here. Note that I am not making light of shootings of anyone in any setting; all gun violence is tragic as far as I'm concerned. This is strictly about establishing what is and isn't notable enough to have a standalone article in this encyclopedia. Funcrunch (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a myriad of notable topics for which we don't have articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a good argument for deleting something, notability should be the deciding consideration. If there are school shootings that have received significant coverage and which satisfy WP:EVENT, then any editors who have the relevant information should feel free and in fact encouraged to create articles about those events. Plus in this case the fatality is a kid. [1]. Nsk92 (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see List of school shootings in the United States. We have had so many school shootings with little to no fatalities and/or injuries at this point. Unless you're saying we should have articles for those as well. Love of Corey (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know without looking more closely and doing various searches to see what kind of coverage those events received. I suspect that there are quite a few entries on that list that satisfy WP:EVENT but currently do not have articles. Nsk92 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's also List of school shootings in the United States (before 2000) to consider. My point is that school shootings are just as frequent in the U.S. as mass shootings in general, and it'd be a mistake to create an article for each and every one of them without considering policies such as WP:NOTNEWS. Love of Corey (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And when I say a "school shooting" here, I mean the archetypal definition of a student targeting at least one other student and/or teacher. Love of Corey (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Austin-East High School or Delete. This is a massive case of WP:TOSOON. As it just occurred and there's zero evidence there will be sustained coverage of it at all. Let alone enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. Wikipedia isn't a news outlet and articles are not supposed to be on single, transient events that are only talked about in the news for a few days and then never come up again. Which is how most of these school shootings turn out. There was over 45 school shootings in America in 2019 and I doubt all or most of them have articles (or deserve to). Also, I'm not solid on a merge compared to delete, because it's not worth merging things that are not worthy of being in Wikipedia in the first place. It's better just to get rid of content that shouldn't be contained in articles. Although, I'm not going to be that bothered if it closes as merge. I just don't think it's the best outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article on the high school and get under control. This was a shoot out where an armed student opened fire on police responding to the fact that he was in the school armed, and the police returned fire which resulted in the student dieing. Wikipedia is not news, and we need to stop creating news articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable article about armed student hiding in a bathroom and resisting arrest. More coverage sure to emerge as the policemen's body cam video is released and as internal affairs comes out with its conclusion. You don't even need a crystal ball to know this. XavierItzm (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge difference between "more coverage" and "sustained coverage." Wikipedia requires the latter, not the former. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So far the coverage has shown no sign of disappearing, including continued national coverage, such as NYT[2], CNN[3], WaPo[4], AjC[5], NBCNews[6], etc. The local media in Knoxville certainly treats this as a high profile event and not just another neighborhood shooting. The recent surprising developments in the case make it much less likely that the media will drop the story quickly. The original police/TBI account of the shooting turned out to be incorrect, and now it comes out that it wasn't the student who shot the responding police officer. Now that the student's identity has been made public, it is known that he was a black teenager, while at least one of the responding police officers was white. The school itself, where this black teenager was killed by the police, has 87% minority student enrollment, with 77% black student enrollment.[7]. The prosecutors are refusing to release the police body camera footage and there have already been community protests. Given what is happening in the U.S. right now (Daunte Wright protests, Derek Chauvin's trial), the police response here will be scrutinized much more closely. It is unlikely that a story like this one will be buried and disappear quietly into the sunset even though it happened in a southern state. XavierItzm is correct, one does not need to have a crystal ball here to know that WP:SUSTAINED is likely to be met. Nsk92 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles you cited are from yesterday. Which is still only 2 days after the shooting and not sustained coverage. Sustained coverage has to be over a certain period of time. Hence why it's called "sustained" and I'm pretty sure two days worth of coverage doesn't count. Even if it's a lot of coverage, because again, the amount doesn't matter here. It's not like the article can't be recreated in a couple of weeks or a month when there actually is sustained coverage, if there is, but until 100% CRYSTALL to say two worth of news coverage on anything constitutes or shows there will be sustained coverage. It's also 100% CRYSTAL to use the particulars of the case or other ones to argue this will still be a thing in a couple of months. Since it's purely speculation that it will be. Again though, it doesn't matter if it is still an article in 2 months, just recreate the article when it actually is. Until then, Wikipedia isn't a news outlet and having an article full of nothing but breaking news from yesterday or the day before is totally treating it like it is one. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the sources I cited are from yesterday. I don't have a time machine. There will be more sources today and I'll add them. But when a significant event happens, we don't wait two months before creating a Wikipedia article about it. We exercise good judgement based on the indicators available. That's what I am trying to do here. At the moment there is continuing significant coverage, both locally and nationally and there are (very) good reasons to believe that it will continue. Under these circumstances the correct thing is to keep the article now and, in the, unlikely in my view, case that the coverage will disappear in 2-3 months, nominate it for deletion then. Nsk92 (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a Wikipedia article about a mass shooting at a Wal-Mart distribution center in Red Bluff, California last year. That shooting had national coverage for the first couple of weeks after. Which people used to justify keeping the article when it was eventually AfDed for the same reasons as this one. There was a lot of the same things said about why the article should be kept as your saying, "this will be a big story", "delete it in two months if there's no coverage anymore", "we're just trying to improve Wikipedia" Etc. Etc. You know what happened there? The article was deleted and rightfully so because after about 3 weeks it was never a thing again. Even though it had been covered in CNN, The New York Times, Etc. Etc. If the article had of been kept, it would have just been a waste of everyone's time to do another AfD for it later when the news dropped the story once the sensationalism died down. I can almost guarantee the same thing will happen here. Past precedence with what happened to similar articles sent to AfD matters also in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the High School's page. A crime scene with one deceased who was the suspect, one injury which may not have even come from the suspect. We are WP:NOTNEWS Continued coverage can be indicated in section at High School page, but the suspect is dead, so there won't be a trial, suspect was armed, so don't expect some kind of charges against the police officer. At best an Internal Affair investigation to see how officer was shot if not by the suspect's gun. Event got national coverage, but any sustained coverage will probably be local. Either way article was made WP:TOOSOON. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The event is still getting some national coverage (present tense). Regarding its future impact, there are other indicators to consider apart from the trial. As I mentioned above, the racial aspect of the situation makes protests of some kind fairly likely and in fact some have happened already. The dead student's family has already hired an attorney[8] after learning that it was not him who shot the responding officer. And even if the sustained coverage does turn out to be just local, that still would still qualify under WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Nsk92 (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the arguments that you've already made why it should not be deleted, what's particularly wrong with it being merged to the article about the school? Merging it seems like a good compromise to me consider it has some coverage as an event, but probably won't get enough to a separate article, and none of the keep "voters" have yet to say why they think merging it wouldn't be an acceptable option. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The event is still developing, and there are significant new ongoing developments that are being extensively covered by the media. E.g. there was a big BLM protest, a suit filed by the city administration seeking to override the DA's order that prevents the bodycam footage from being released, growing controversy about the bodycam footage, etc. Trying to squeeze this info into the parent article about the school would immediately present WP:DUEWEIGHT problems. There is already enough material for a standalone article here and there will be more as things develop further. Nsk92 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simply labeling an event "minor" without any reference to how it is covered by WP:RS is a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. The local media in Knoxville continues to cover it as a high profile event, with new developments still unfolding. There are even continuing stories about the event in the national media from today and yesterday, e.g. [9],[10][11]. Nsk92 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In case anyone cares to pay attention to what's actually happening in the case and to which sources and how continue to cover it, today's (April 19) story in Huffington Post about the case reports that Ben Crump, a national civil rights lawyer representing the families of George Floyd and Daunte Wright, announced that his office will be representing Anthony Thompson’s family. Crump released a statement denouncing the speed with which the police resorted to the use of force against a person of color in Anthony Thompson's case. [12] Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - keep votes are all based on "it's too soon to delete this" - that's the opposite of what our policy WP:NOTNEWS says (explained by WP:RECENTISM) - which says we don't have a deadline to have an article about something and it can always be created later if it proves to be independently notable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the same logic we should delete the article about every recent event from the last several days, including, say Indianapolis FedEx shooting, and wait several months before creating it. We do not wait to create an article where continued significant coverage is available and all reasonable indications are that such coverage will continue. That is exactly the case here. That's not at all what WP:NOTNEWS requires. It is always easier to delete an article than to create it. Where the indicators are that the event is likely to be notable, the standard course of action is to create an article now and renominate it for deletion later, in case the coverage disappears a few months from now, not the other way around. Given what is happening with 2020–2021 United States racial unrest right now and in light of the involvement of George Floyd and Daunte Wright's lawyer in this case, as noted above, it is extremely unlikely that the media will suddenly drop this story or that the Knoxville community itself will stop treating it as a high profile matter. Nsk92 (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nsk92, this flies in the face of our "no deadline" guidance. There is no deadline to have an article on something, and this push to be a breaking news source that has the most up to date information on things is not in line with being an encyclopedia. This is exactly what the GNG is designed to prevent - articles about recent events (which are the definition of "routine news coverage") being used to justify notability of something that does not have true notability beyond the timeframe. Notability isn't temporary, but routine, local, or temporal news coverage does not contribute much at all to notability. Wikipedia also should not attempt to judge "inidcators" that an event "is likely to be notable" - we wait to see if it is beforehand. There's a ton of WP:acronyms that your comment here flies in the face of - some of which are beyond a consensus formed at an AfD discussion such as the pillars and what Wikipedia is not. If you truly believe that Wikipedia should be a breaking news site and not an encyclopedia, I wish you the best of luck in attempting to obtain a larger consensus (project-wide) for that - but until you do, I'll point out when !votes fly in the face of that project wide consensus against such "breaking news" things. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL guidance. Like I said, according to your logic, articles like Indianapolis FedEx shooting would have to be deleted on exactly the same grounds you are advancing now. That's not what we do. We look at the available coverage and other indicators of likely notability and make a common sense decision about how to proceed. That's what always happens in practice with new events (not just crimes, but new events of any kind). I am arguing my case based on the sources and the kind of coverage they actually provide here. You are not. Nsk92 (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least for me its a common sense decision about how to proceed based on how the guidelines fit this particular instance. You can't treat AfDs like its one or the other though like you are. I assume everyone else who voted merge is doing a similar calculation about it to me. Yet your arguing with everyone that disagrees with you. Despite the fact that we are following your standards. Just coming to different conclusions. That said nowhere does someone simply saying "do it my way because common sense brah" ever lead to anything besides pointless bickering. Adamant1 (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our standards do not exists in a vacuum and cannot be applied as some kind of abstract ideological principles devoid of context. So far nobody who argued for merge or delete undertook any substantive analysis of available coverage. The TOOSOON arguments presented so far basically really boil down to IDONTLIKEIT kind of arguments. Nsk92 (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter what coverage is available now - virtually no coverage of "current events" can be described as anything other than routine - which by definition means that none of it counts for notability. Wikipedia is not breaking news - this is a core principle of what Wikipedia is/isn't - and your attempts at morphing other policies/guidelines to "override" this by finding some way to finagle an article in to fit your idea that Wikipedia should be breaking news do not override the fact we simply aren't. There is an argument to be had about events that can be presumed notable before coverage exists - that's a key point of our subject notability guidelines, after all. A mass shooting by a former employee that resulted in 8 deaths is certainly much closer to that presumption than a shooting that resulted in no deaths (aside from the perpetrator) and only one injury. Your comment below also suggests that you're arguing for this to be kept because you think that "the racial justice aspect of this" should be considered by editors - and that in and of itself is inappropriate and you should reconsider commenting if that's your basis for commenting on these sorts of AfD discussions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsk92: Indianapolis FedEx shooting is not really the best example to bring up for your argument. As the one who created it, I noticed the article wasn't up on Wikipedia while the breaking news coverage was minutes to an hour old. I created it once I learned of the death toll in that shooting, and I suspect that if the numbers were considerably lower than what we tragically got, we wouldn't have a Wikipedia article on that incident at all. I made the argument over at another AfD discussion that articles about mass shootings (which this article started out as) should not be created until we learn official casualty numbers from law enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love of Corey (talk • contribs)
Responding since I was pinged. The number of fatalities in a particular incident is a totally arbitrary parameter and the incident does not have to be a mass shooting to be notable. Plenty of events with a single fatality are notable, e.g., to take a recent example, Killing of Daunte Wright. What matters for notability is the coverage the event receives in WP:RS. Daunte Wright was just one black 20-year-old black young man killed by the police under controversial circumstances, and Anthony Thompson Jr was just one 17-year-old back young man killed by the police under controversial circumstances. Of course, the Daunte Wright case received more and higher profile coverage, but an event does not need to be ITN worthy to merit an article. The Anthony Thompson Jr case continues to receive significant coverage, including from national media, and the events there are still unfolding. Nsk92 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For those arguing for merge or delete, I'd like you to take another look at what happened in this case so far and how it is actually being covered by WP:RS. A black teenager was killed at school during an armed confrontation with the police. The original police account of the shooting turned out to be crucially incorrect. There is a bodycam video that the DA is refusing the release, despite a mounting community pressure to do so and a court suit by the city itself seeking to release the video. There have been escalating local racial justice protests over the shooting. The dead student's family hired the highest profile lawyer for these types of cases, Ben Crump, to represent them. The national media continues to cover the case in-depth. Just from earlier today we have AP[13], Newsweek[14], Huffington Post[15], and even international media [16]. Today's NYT story[17] says that the Anthony Thompson case was mentioned at the Minnesota racial justice protest on Monday. Plus the local media in Knoxville continues to give the case high profile coverage. Calling this case "minor" completely disregards how the WP:RS have been covering it. The racial justice aspect of this case makes it different from many other school shootings and makes it highly improbable that in today's U.S. political, societal and media climate the story will quietly disappear. Nsk92 (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heated content
Assume good faith and don't bludgeon the process. Adamant1 (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't questioned anyone's AGF and I am not bludgeoning the discussion. But I am making arguments that need to be made and drawing attention to new developments. Nsk92 (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you need to read WP:BLUDGEON again. You've already made your points many times over; now it's time to let the AfD discussion take its course. Love of Corey (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've commented 9 times just today and nothing you have said adds anything new to the AfD discussion that you haven't stated multiple times already. I'd call that WP:BLUDGEON. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I said something substantively new that I haven't said multiple times already. I brought up significant new developments in the case, such as escalating BLM protests around it and the involvement of Ben Crump, the highest profile national lawyer for these types of case. I provided examples of continued fresh coverage by national and international media. I did respond to a 'merge' opinion that provided reasoning that was, at least in my opinion, invalid on its face. And I responded to a baseless accusation of not assuming AGF. None of that constitutes bludgeoning. Nsk92 (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you doing a running commentary of every breaking story of the thing isn't adding anything new or substantive to the discussion. Not every single little transient minutia of a subject is notable or helps in AfD discussions. Especially when it's something that is still ongoing. If anything, it helps less then just not saying anything for reasons that should be really obvious. As far as you "responding" to the supposedly baseless accusation of not assuming good faith, the lack of faith your assuming comes from the fact that you think people who voted merge just need to read the latest sensationalist news story about it to change their minds. It's extremely bad faithed to act like people who voted differently then are just doing so out of ignorance of the subject or a lack of special information that you have access to and they don't for whatever reason. It just comes off as confrontational. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that this entire subthread either go into a collapse box or be moved to the AfD talk page if someone wants to continue it there. Nsk92 (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to do that personally, sorry. Love of Corey (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the high school's article; two people dying is a tragedy, but it is not ipso facto a notable event. My grandparents, while dearly missed, don't have an article about their death. The September 11th attacks were tragic, yet do not justify the creation of 1,500 articles (one for every two people who died). Et cetera... jp×g 04:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: As it happens, it was one person dying in this event, not two. One black teenage student killed by a police officer. But as I noted above, the number of fatalities has nothing to do with notability of a particular criminal event. What counts is the coverage of an event by WP:RS. The killing of Daunte Wright was a single fatality event, and yet we have two articles about it, Killing of Daunte Wright and Daunte Wright protests. Just like in the Daunte Wright case, the notability of the death of Anthony Thompson Jr comes mainly from the racial justice aspect, not from the high number of fatalities. Nsk92 (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you have responded to almost every single "delete" or "merge" !vote with nearly identical lengthy go-offs, or why you {{collapse}}d the previous thread where someone pointed out that this was WP:BLUDGEONing. Regardless, I will again make reference to WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. jp×g 09:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I collapsed a portion of a discussion that was getting heated after another editor who participated in that discussion agreed that collapsing would be a good idea but said that they didn't know how to make a collapse box themselves[18]. Regarding Michelle Obama's arms, we are not talking about somebody's arms here, we are talking about a young black man who was killed by the police in a country that is gripped by a racial unrest. Nsk92 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1 was the person you were arguing with; Love of Corey (the person who said they didn't know how to collapse the discussion) had not posted in it previously. jp×g 17:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they have. See the third post from the top within the collapse box content. Nsk92 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was heated anyway. At least not anymore then a lot of these conversations get that aren't subsequently collapsing because of it. IMO the more important thing then "tone policing" is the clear WP:BLUDGEONing by Nsk92 that collapsing the discussion only serves to obscure. No one would be offended by anything in that discussion to the point where it needs to be hidden from view though. Otherwise, 90% of AfD discussions would be collapsed. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is clearly significant coverage, including from national outlets, regarding this event. And the coverage is ongoing/sustained, which is perhaps unsurprising given the current racial and political climate in the United States. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From what I can tell there was like 2 articles in national outlets in the last week about how the officer won't be charged in the shooting. There's been zero about any kind of protests over it though. Let any ongoing ones or anything else indicating this will be an ongoing thing as a notable incident. A few outlets have even pivoted to articles about "Shootings at the school" in general instead of this specific one. Which really makes me think it's not going to be as notable story on it's own long-term. At least not enough to warrant a separate article or not just merging it into the schools article. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect on both counts. There have been way more than 2 articles in national outlets covering that none of the officers will be charged. E.g. CNN[19], WaPo[20], NYT[21], NBC News[22], AjC[23], USA Today [24], NY Post[25]. There have been at least two subsequent national news stories specifically about the follow-up protests: Fox News, [26] and NBC News[27]. Nsk92 (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So here's the thing, the protests where two days ago, going by the dates of the news articles about them they were only for 2 days and pretty insignificant, and they seem to have ended after the police wasn't charged. That's the problem with going with breaking news for every freaken metric of what's notable or not like your doing. Plus, "protests" is a mush brained, meaningless word that has no bearing on something being notable anyway. No one is going to argue that the article should be kept if 15 angry kids from the school march around in front of it for a few days even if it is a "protest." Otherwise, they just passed a law in Florida that anytime more then two people are gathered in one place it's a riot. So, I guess your standard there would be that literally everything involving more then two people in Florida that has a couple of news stories about it within a week of each other is notable "because riots."
Not to mention most things these days that are in the news involves some kind of legitimate protest. You think "protests" are enough for something to be notable, cool. Start an RfC about it then and see if you can get the notability guidelines changed over it. Until then though, there still needs to be sustained coverage of the event and it just hasn't been long enough since it happened to say there has been or is going to be continued coverage. In the meantime, even the Fox News article you linked to discusses the 5 shootings that have happened at the school and isn't focused on the single shooting that this article is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Protests involving hundreds of people are not "insignificant". And the protests have not ended. There was a smaller protest on Saturday[28], and it remains to be seen what will happen today. The city administration and the KPD are preparing for more[29]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where did anything you've linked to say the protests involved "hundreds of people? From the video it like 20 or 30 students from the school at best. Also, is the fact that the protests have been smaller an indication that this story is picking up steam or dying down? The answer to that should be pretty obvious. Adamant1 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I cited above don't mention the size of the protests, but the sources cited in the article do. Here is another regional news source, from Nashville, about the Thursday protest:Hundreds protest in Knoxville after DA says no charges for officers in shooting at school. The protest yesterday was indeed smaller but we don't know what will happen today or tomorrow. However we do know that the media in Knoxville has not dropped the story or pushed it away. The top front page headline in Knox News today[30] is about the fact that only one of the police body cameras in the incident worked properly, and the next top one concerns an internal KPD investigation of the incident[31]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. Still though, there's nothing in the notability guidelines that says things that have protests around them are inherently more notable then things that don't. There's also nothing that makes a "school shooting" any more notable then any other type of shooting. In the meantime for criminal acts there's WP:VICTIM that makes it clear "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person" and we have the schools article as a perfectly good place for the information. WP:INVALIDBIO also makes it clear that having a relationship to something that is notable isn't enough for that thing to be notable. It's also clear that we should "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics."
And those things are are all your basing your keep arguments on. While you can base your keep arguments on whatever you want, it's still on you in these discussions to provide a guideline based rational for them and I haven't seen you do that. Whereas, there's plenty of guideline based reasons for the merge counter arguments. If you have a good dispute point for why merging is bad, cool. Then provide it. I've asked several times though and you've just repeated the same old talking points of protests and people involved while not actually giving one or citing a guideline. I'll also add that criminal acts by their nature inherently get news coverage. Especially shootings and ones involving cops. So there has to be more then that to separate the notable ones from the non-notable ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2021 (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/Austin-East_Magnet_High_School_shooting&oldid=1019978861"