Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Long Branch, New Jersey shootings

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. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Long Branch, New Jersey shootings

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

I see nothing in this event that strikes me as having any LASTING effect (other than, you know, the death and stuff). Basically a combination of NOTNEWS, and the overly undue weight given to the autism angle is a bit disconcerting as well. Primefac (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur completely with nom, nothing else to really add. Stikkyy t/c 00:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Event unlikely to have a lasting impact. PriceDL (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An AfD debate is also open for this crime at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Long Branch shooting. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to redirest this article (as the discussion was opened slightly later) and continue discussing in one place.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, but it's also a bit more detailed (even if there is some undue wording). It doesn't really make sense to do a merge while two AFDs are going on. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are both now headed to delete, probably merding the discussions is indeed not necessary.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the other discussion and redirected here. Agree that it's headed for delete so it'll probably have been pointless anyways. ansh 666 05:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- And in any case, the perpetrator entry in the infobox has to go. Look in the dictionary. There has been no trial yet. Rhadow (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, even though this article about the incident is more comprehensive than the other. Sadly, the murders of *ONLY* four people in a mass shooting is tragically too ordinary to merit the kind of long-term coverage that would establish notability. Any meaningful content could be preserved by a merge to Long Branch, New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I hate living in a world where this is true, but per WP:NCRIME a four-person shooting is far too routine to be notable. As an alternative, possibly move to draftspace in case something transpires to demonstrate WP:LASTING notability... but either way this article should go, at least for now. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. We have international at this time - e.g. New Jersey boy 'murdered family and friend on New Year's Eve', BBC and coverage has been significant since 1st January to date (3rd January). Coverage might or might not die down (my BALL says the autism angle might be grounds for more coverage) - however this should be evaluated in a few months - at present the sole questionable component for GNG is LASTING - and that can't be evaluated due to the recentness of the event - hence RAPID.Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAPID doesn't just say to keep an article. It mentions alternatives such as moving the article to draftspace until notability is properly established. That seems applicable since there's no evidence of WP:LASTING notability yet. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is possibly to Userfy, but in this case we have SIGCOV - very wide coverage. assessing LASTING here really is a matter of BALL.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:24, 7 January 2018 (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.