Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editing 2009 DC Snowball Fight Gun Controversy

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. WP:NOTNEWS is concerned with whether the notability of the event will withstand the test of time. Even though this may have had international coverage, there is nothing to suggest that the coverage will endure. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; as such, it covers topics that last. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing 2009 DC Snowball Fight Gun Controversy[edit]

Editing 2009 DC Snowball Fight Gun Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable snowball fight. Quite simply a policeman acted in misconduct and it made local headlines for an hour. This fails WP:N per WP:EVENTS - Depth of coverage, duration of coverage, geographic scope, lasting effect, and almost every other criteria we have for current events or other events. This is already article on WikiNews. Mkdwtalk 04:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As nominator. Mkdwtalk 04:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with no prejudice against re-evaluating in, say, a month's time. Sometimes these things snowball (hah) into things like Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy. Way too early to tell at this time if this will be forgotten. Give it a month and if nothing more is said about it in the media, there's your answer. Incidentally, the article needs renaming for a variety of obvious reasons, but I'd rather see a brief discussion of what a better title would be before do any moves.--Father Goose (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, I've renamed it to 2009 snowball fight gun controversy, just to remove the most glaring errors in the original name. With such a mangled title, I can't help but think it will poison the well against the article, regardless of whether it may or may not have a place in the encyclopedia.--Father Goose (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless I'm immediately putting this up for deletion in Jan. The only reason you're saying keep is that this MIGHT become a notable article if in the FUTURE it becomes a significant issue blatantly WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Mkdwtalk 10:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The person who wrote the article jumped the gun on declaring this incident lastingly notable; you're jumping the gun on declaring it instantly non-notable. If you had been willing to wait just a little while, this deletion discussion would be more straightforward, as the significance (or non-significance) of the event would become clear by then. Just a dollop of patience would have served the community better in this case.--Father Goose (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obvious this will not develop into anything more than a page 12 story. We can recognize that does not constitute needing to wait it out. If I make a an article about band I believe will become famous, are you suggesting that we keep the article because only time will tell if they do or not? The point that articles are to be judged in the current is very expressly pointed out in nearly every Wikipedia policy. Mkdwtalk 22:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suffice it to say I'm intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policies. I have less confidence in your ability to ability to predict the future -- "It's painfully obvious this will not develop into anything more than a page 12 story" -- than you do. In this case, I personally would have preferred a month of so worth of future to elapse, thereby removing crystal balls from the equation altogether.--Father Goose (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, switch to delete, as it does seem the story has died down, and will probably not meet the duration of coverage/lasting effect criteria. My original point still stands, however: had the story evolved since the opening of the AfD, and demonstrated some ability to meet those criteria, it would still be deleted on the basis of several premature assessments not taking that into account.--Father Goose (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability. And no controversy either, since everyone agrees that the police officer was wrong. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have to disagree with no controversy, there are seveal opinions which blame the people in the fight for making more than there was. And yestarday the head of the DC police Union called the comments of the chief as wrong [1]. Also in the area where I live, it was picked up on a African American cop harassing a group of white men with a gun. Again, I do live in Southwest Ohio so news here has some bias. As this happened in the nations capital, I started an article figure that this would snowball (no pun) in to something more as DC falls under the jurisdiction of congress. I thought that this was something that might do that, if it does not than it should be removed, if it does it has become worth the time and effort of editors, I think. Jsgoodrich (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I love wikipedia. I hadn't even heard of this, and I love how it morphs into "2009 DC Snowball Fight Gun Controversy".--Milowent (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete News stories report that an off-duty cop got mad because a snowball hit his Humvee (personal car or department??) and he exited the vehicle with a pistol in his hand, aimed downward. In the Boston Massacre, Americans threw snowballs at British troops, who shot and killed 5 of the snowball throwers, helping to spark the American Revolution. In this case, good judgment prevailed, no shots were fired, and the incident petered out. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, due to a lack of enduring notability. Cops carry guns, and in a potential riot situation, unholstering it seems like a reasonable response, if not the very best one. Edison (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting, I did not recall the snowballs at the Boston Massacre, very nice. Apparently there are notable snowball fights. But no doubt that would have been up for AfD in 1770 as a single criminal event of minor importance.--Milowent (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename. Speaking as a Brit this is exactly the sort of thing I find disturbing about armed police and about a gun carrying culture. It is the sort of event that would lead, in London or Brussels, to a public enquiry, and possibly a policy change. Certainly the officer would be on gardening leave, not desk duties. The fact that none of these things has happened is a marked contrast that is, in itself, notable. Hasty Deletion might,in some cultures, be seen as a cover-up or news censorship. Remember what the world thought of Iran trying to shut down twitter reports of post-election demonstrations? --Brunnian (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAnd when London police shot a brown skinned unarmed man,Jean Charles de Menezes, in the head 7 times, when he was guilty of nothing but getting on the tube and sitting down, and there were several enquiries, what punishment was meted out? None. The official in charge was in fact promoted. The U.S. cop at least had had the training and sense not to panic and start shooting. The Menzies incident showed that some police weapons use can be notable. But not every drawing of a weapon needs an encyclopedia article forever to commemorate it. Edison (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um.. what? "Deletion might, in some cultures, be seen as a cover-up". And here comes the conspiracy censorship theories about fellow editors. That's very nice that you find gun-culture disturbing, but unless you have an opinion about Wikipedia policy and this articles relation to it, your point is moot. Public inquiries happen all the time. Police and politicians are reprimanded all the time. Do we have an article for every single Internal Affair document ever filed, no. Using examples like Iran, and Massacres has absolutely no relation to this article as those were already major events and this will likely not even make the news in 2 days. Mkdwtalk 09:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
exactly the incident does highlight some themes about D.C. and America: armed police, with an understandable overreaction, (just like the World Bank illegal arrests); 14th & U an historic intersection, (U st and 1968 riots); culture wars between Facebook meetups and blue colar cops. Now if we could get some references to write an essay. Pohick2 (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pohick Brunnian, I'm afraid the arguments don't enter into it. Just because we're a gun carrying culture and the cop was armed doesn't mean this is why he lost his temper. He just lost his temper, and had a gun on hand. He was off duty. This is Washington DC, not the best area in the world to put it mildly, and as a cop, he is issued a right to carry a revolver. But, we're not concerned about this - the concern is only whether this is a notable incident. The rest of the information you have doesn't add or subtract from this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Got the wrong guy. Sorry, Pohick, meant to address the guy who !voted keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: check out WP:CENSORED. The comments you leave seem to be alluding to that you feel we are censoring this information. This isn't censorship in the classic sense - concensus thus far seems to state that we don't think it's notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--24.201.13.148 (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Police screwups occur every day, and in the sbsence of significant controversy or consequences there's no reason for a COATRACKy article that does little more than point at the nn officer involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An overly detailed article about a local incident covered by the local paper. The fact that the locality is Washington, D.C., rather than Seymour, Indiana, is of no relevance whatsoever. There was a snowball fight. A cop drew his gun. The cop was disciplined. I'm glad that it didn't become notable. Mandsford (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's been moved to remove the leading "Editing" from the title. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cop lost his temper, brandished a gun, threatened some people who were having a good time, and the cop got slapped. OK, everything happened as per procedure. But just because a cop threw a tantrum, that doesn't make this notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Non-notable local news item. --NellieBly (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for now. This was not a local news item, it was reported internationally and in many different media. The Twitter aspect is interesting. Perhaps the consensus will be to delete, but of course other editors will be free to bring it back next year if the incident turns out to have "legs" in the media jargon. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was widely reported in the UK as major news. WP:NOTNEWS is therefore not applicable as that just deals with routine, local matters. We have abundant notability and notability does not expire because the sources which are the basis of notability do not disappear - they can only grow in number. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The policy doesn't speak on how long the sources remain, but the duration of the collective events which lasted less than two days and is no longer being reported on. This story also has no lasting effects in that when it talks about 'enduring' it refers to remaining current and on the radio of media. The story has effectively died and no further media is being generated in regards. "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic". Nothing much else to say really. Mkdwtalk 16:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The incident is still generating coverage days later. The guidance you cite indicates that our coverage should be confined to an article about the event. This is what we have and so we're good. Deletion of this notable topic is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually no its not. Other media have picked up the story and are reporting on the snowball fight late. No new events or developments have been reported on. This confines the event and all news to the day of the snowball fight and has had no lasting effects which makes it a delete under WP:EVENTS and WP:NOTNEWS. Lily Towerstalk 20:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reason for deleting is NOT NEWS. I think that we often apply NOT NEWS considerably too stringently, but this is a place where it does apply--something intrinsically extremely minor. If it does not apply here, where does it apply? That there are sources are irrelevant to the reason for deleting. Obviously the season had something to do with the reporting -- this is not exactly Tabloid, but its the same principle, that pure human interest local stories unless they become a significant controversial issue or impact politics, or are major enough to be part of history, do not belong here. We've deleted hundreds of murders, & I do not see how anyone could claim this as more important. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable based on press coverage. I don't care if it was a snowball fight, a gunfight, or a snowball fight between snowmen for that matter. I care about the importance assigned to the subject by the outside world, regardless of any inherent attribute of the subject. I wish we could put to rest this silly idea that something can receive large-scale public attention and still somehow be non-notable. Everyking (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have an article on the Obama family White House vegetable garden? Northwestgnome (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why we couldn't: [2][3]. WP:WAX-based arguments are of little use.--Father Goose (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is an article on the White House Vegetable Garden Jsgoodrich (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS - "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all newsworthy events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." Lily Towerstalk 20:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an issue that has now been over a week old and news sources are still reporting this and reaction. Also this is a article that can be expanded to talk about the reaction to the flashmobs. This was a police officer how may not have seen a flashmob event or even known what they are. How is a flashmob different from the start of riot or large protest. As more and more flashmobs appear the reaction of people and law enforcement could be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsgoodrich (talk • contribs) 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. Some media sources picked up the story and reported on the snowball fight. They are not generated new stories about developments after the event which makes all news about this event confined to the day itself. No lasting effects whatsoever. Lily Towerstalk 19:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: since I know this will likely be deleted, I would suggest that a paragraph be added to Snowball fight, which already mentions a few other snowball fights that made the papers.--Milowent (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Milowent, can you add that paragraph, or at least add the idea to the talk page there? --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok, added a referenced sentence there Pohick2 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because WP:NOTNEWS does not apply (because event was by far not local, it was covered all over the world) and notability is obvious. This is a worthy contribution to the project, it tells us of flash mobs and about police mentality. Turqoise127 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason for the fact that it was covered all over has nothing to do with the criteria in WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EVENTS. Your statement that it should be kept because more than local news reported it is not found in any Wiki policy. Lily Towerstalk 19:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete & Comment - It appears to me that everyone above that has said WP:NOTNEWS does not apply due to it being reported by other abroad news sources hasn't read the policy. In fact the policy does not even mention anything in relation to where coverage takes place. I have decided to post the policy here for your clarification:
News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all newsworthy events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)
I cannot help but think that this is a prime example of WP:NOTNEWS in that while this event was covered by the media, but like the policy says, not all newsworthy material should be included in an Encyclopedia. It defaults to WP:EVENTS where the event has failed to generate more coverage other than the exact event itself, and has no lasting effects. Lily Towerstalk 19:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Thanks you for your comment, editor Lily. I am not very demanding that this article be kept, but I stand by my vote because I feel that the event paints a picture about possible ramifications of flashmob games and about the "town sheriff" mentality of police (not all of course) insofar as shoot first and ask questions later. I do agree with you that we default here to WP:EVENTS, and I shall also modestly list here an excerpt from that policy;
Depth of coverage
An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. CHECK.
The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents). CHECK. (ramifications of police conduct and flashmob phenomenon).
Duration of coverage
...Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established... CHECK. So no need for continuing coverage. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. CHECK CHECK CHECK. We do not as of yet know if any of this will have lasting impact. Also, event occurred recently.
Thus, note to the closing admin, per Lily Towers, please see that we default to WP:EVENTS and disregard all delete votes above and below that cite delete per WP:NOTNEWS.
Thanks editor Lily.Turqoise127 (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misread her comments and noted that she actually voted deleted. It appears you only have 400 edits, but the way the !vote system works here is that the other editors have argued that WP:NOTNEWS applies here for their own reasons, just as you feel it does not apply. The fact that you feel its void does not invalidate their arguments or the arguments of anyone else on this topic whether they voted keep or delete. The story has died so it has no duration and hasn't had any lasting effects, so uncheck? Mkdwtalk 18:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete an angry cop brandished his sidearm after his car was hit by a snowball and... then what? Then nothing as far as encyclopedia's go. Not news, etc.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's imagine two scenarios: in the first scenario, the incident plays out the way it actually did. In the second scenario, the officer opens fire on the crowd and kills several people. Now imagine that these two scenarios receive identical levels of press coverage, identical levels of public attention. In my view, notability has to be based ultimately on whether people care, which is by necessity evaluated on the basis of published sources. If there's no difference in the degree of public attention, then the level of notability is identical. I can't take seriously an argument that says: "This is more notable than that, because in this case people died." As a measure of notability, a standard like that is just too crude and subjective to be useful. Everyking (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a cop murdered a group of US civilians in cold blood that would be a more notable event, both empirically and as it would be reflected in the press coverage of the trial, police inquisition, citizen protest rallies against police, expert papers written on what went wrong that turned a cop into a murderer, etc... In your hypothetical, the real world impact and level of public caring would be much, much greater. If you can't see how this article and the hypothetical you invented aren't even in the same ballpark, then i can't help you.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're missing the point: of course we'd expect the second scenario to generate greater attention, but we're imagining, for the sake of argument, that it doesn't. Is murder intrinsically more notable than non-murder, or is it just ordinarily more notable because ordinarily it would attract more attention? Try an even more extreme scenario: the cop shoots these people, and it garners no more than a line or two in the local newspaper, whereas the original scenario 1 gets international news coverage. Everyking (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Impossible, never gonna happen, hypotheticals are tedious. In this instance we have a singular event of no lasting real-world impact, which made it into the "on the lighter side of the news" section of a few newspapers for a few days, then completely disappeared. You're missing the point by making up scenarios that have not happened, and never will happen. Only articles that exist, on events that have happened, can be evaluated. In this instance there is not coverage of sufficient depth to warrant an article. You seem to think the standard of inclusion should be "everything that was once written about in a newspaper." The actual and appropriate standard is a little higher than that.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is news fodder, and in the grand scheme of things, nothing is lost as WikiNews already picked up on it, as they should. JBsupreme (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
actually, the wikinews article was deleted [4] Pohick2 (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "NOTNEWS" mentions "routine press coverage". What level of press coverage, if any, do you feel would be necessary to demonstrate that this subject received more than "routine" press coverage? Everyking (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that an incident briefly catches people's attention doesn't make it encyclopedically notable. This is why we don't have an article on 2009 White House dinner menu typo controversy. If this becomes more than a minor two-day event in the news, there'll be plenty of time to make an article about any genuine "controversy" that comes about.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but your argument about a page 6 sytle section article does not hold water to me. We do have 2009 White House gatecrash incident which was a event that was picked up as a minor event with no real encyclopedia value. I think people are missing the bigger picture overall. As more and more flash mobs grow the interaction between the police or land owners is going to become more of an issue. If you were a cop and saw 200 people in the streets would yo not worry? Law's are always slow to keep up with technology, so is police procedure. Also what is encyclopedic has grown as wiki is not limited to a paper copy and we do not have to worry about printing and shipping cost, so we can have more and expanded what we cover, and we also can cover more events in real time over that of a paper copy which has to take months to edit and print. Jsgoodrich (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • People who want to delete per NOTNEWS should answer the question I posed above: How much press coverage do you feel would be necessary to exceed the level of "routine" press coverage? Is it your position that everything the press reports is routine unless reports continue to be published after an extended period of time? Everyking (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody said that there is a specific length of time etc. How about if you try WP:RECENTISM instead. Apply the 10 year test. Will anyone in 10 years give a crap about this? How about 10 months from now? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Lets delete per NOTNEWS. No no, wait, delete per EVENTS. No, wait, no, doesnt hold water, lets try delete per RECENTISM. No, no, wait, um what else can we try? Turqoise127 (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Snowball fight. Turqoise127 is wilfully misreading the guidance at WP:EVENTS, which is the appropriate guideline for this kind of article. I should know, I helped write the guideline. Despite widespread coverage and a diversity of sources, there's no indication that it'll have a lasting effect, and the coverage directly about it and outside the immediate locality petered out after the 23rd (so coverage is hardly persistent). It can be mentioned briefly in the main snowball fight article, the level of detail the article goes into is ridiculous. Fences&Windows 01:48, 1 January 2010 (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/Editing_2009_DC_Snowball_Fight_Gun_Controversy&oldid=1148682853"