Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2015 Rio Bravo lynching

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015 Rio Bravo lynching[edit]

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

Seems like a clear example of WP:NOTNEWS to me; sources not contemporary with the event are needed to convince me otherwise. TheLongTone (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am the author of the article. The purpose of the article was to move some of the news event to a different page from the Río Bravo, Suchitepéquez article at the objection of this user as stated here. It seems that he felt that the picture and items about the lynching were overwhelming the content of a page that was suppposed to be about a town. In an attempt to ameliorate this, I tried to bring in some town data from the Spanish Wikipedia -- this material however, is poorly sourced in English. However, it does seem to serve to make the Río Bravo, Suchitepéquez article less about the murder and more about the town itself. If it is decided that the event itself does not merit its own article, then the content I suppose would better be left in the article about the town, but the above I hope, explains my intent in creating the article. As TheLongTone mentions above, I can find no sources that are not centered around the time of the event itself, so it may not be deemed noteworthy. I am open to suggestions as to how this should be handled. Many thanks for your kind attention. H.dryad (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but I don't think that creating an article on the incident as a way of removing the picture from another article but keeping it on WP is particularly constructive.TheLongTone (talk)

I understand the objections and have no real qualms with it being deleted; the event got international coverage, but the coverage did not last long. The problem seems to be that the town is mostly notable for the incident and not that much else, but the incident in and of itself may not constitute a notable news event in the eyes of Wikipedia. I have tried to fill out the article of the town itself some. The data that I pulled from the Spanish Wikipedia will likely be easier to verify so that problem may no longer exist. Again, thanks for the input. H.dryad (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep I think H.dryad brings up an excellent point and while the sources need to be improved I think this article is notable enough. If not than it should obviously be merged with Río Bravo, Suchitepéquez, but per H.dryad's logic I think it should be kept separate. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:UNDUE. The incident was of adequate notability in the history of the community, but to merge it into the community article would put undue weight on that article. Occasionally a content fork is appropriate, and this one is. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at best instead as this seems to have still been a then-event, thus it's unlikely there's anything else extra to suggest still needingly enhancing this article of a localized community event. If needed, the history contents can be kept therefore as a redirect. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 27 May 2016 (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.