Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Los Angeles Unified School District closure

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 redirect to Los Angeles Unified School District. MBisanz talk 14:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Los Angeles Unified School District closure

[edit]
2015 Los Angeles Unified School District closure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Really this is too soon. Schools close all the time, yes there was a terrorist threat but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this type of event does not warrant a standalone article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further Comment There is an inherent prejudice against articles about current news events. While it is likely chaos caused by a panicked school board (affecting 640,000 students), we don't know what is the true story yet. It has been judged a hoax by the LAPD. What we can justify is covering such a major event, hoax or not, because it clearly meets WP:GNG. I'm avoiding a keep vote for now because I don't want to keep a junk article, but as future ramifications warrant, there is no reason for wikipedia to panic and remove it prematurely. Trackinfo (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notes about the article - About the email, the two sentences contradict each other and with no further information it doesn't really seem necessary. With the death of the student Andres Perez, (I know its tragic and may he Rest in Peace) his death was an indirect event that happened and had nothing to do with the threat at all. If these threats happened often, the article is no more than a run of the mill, except this time there was wide-media coverage, but that doesn't make it news worthy of an article by itself. However this information could be used (with improvement) on the LAUSD page, rather than being its own article. Adog104 Talk to me 21:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the other school closings mentioned by that article have articles, nor should this one. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the proper redirect target when we have a nationwide spate of school closures, each to the District? An article on American fears og terrorist attack in response to Paris and San Bernardino? The phenomenon (faux threats, real threats, massive school closings) is real.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's recentism, nothing else. We shan't know anything about a "phenomenon" of this sort for many years. History only becomes apparent after it has passed. You take a journalistic approach where a historical approach is needed. If a "phenomenon" of this sort is truly recorded in the history books in five years' time, then we can write an article on it. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikipedias in the news covers major encyclopedic events with established notability. Not every world event belongs here nor is it appropriate to add every news story about notable events to pages. For example, adding so and so reported an event to a companies page isn't necessarily appropriate every time they are mentioned in the news. Mrfrobinson (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Vincent Canfield has been issued a subpoena
  2. Cortines recently resigned as superintendent
  3. More than one dozen additional schools and districts in the United States have received similar threats days AFTER this happened
  4. An arrest has finally been made in New Mexico
  5. KUTV published an article where numerous experts spoke in detail about how organizations can and should respond to similar threats
  6. @Medeis:, @Adog104:, @RGloucester:, @Ohnoitsjamie:, @Mrfrobinson:, @Ueutyi:, @Mrschimpf: and @Gene93k: have yet to indicate why the article should not be redirected
Honestly, it seems to me that there is great potential for policy and procedure changes as a result of this incident, and the publicity that surrounds it. It may not be prudent to delete this article right away, until we know what changes may take place as a result of this incident. Additionaly, with the article being this size, it would be an incredible feat to merge it into Los Angeles Unified School District. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are going to ping me, at least pay attention to the fact that I said it was up to the editors of the district article to decide if the incident was worth inclusion in the wider article. I still argue that a separate article is entirely unjustified. I am reminded of various NYC blizzard "scandals" of the same effect and magnitude that are mere footnotes to the mayoralties of previous officeholders. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still stand by my !vote but have no feeling one way or another about a redirect if others feel it appropriate; nothing new seems to have come to the table (point by point; investigation ongoing, a superintendent's resignation has nothing to do with anything, copycat calls in other districts weren't unexpected, again, investigation ongoing, and who gives a flip what the security pundit community that exists to push their agendas/products cares about this story, let's hear from people actually involved with it?). There's nothing to really merge outside a few lines which can compactly describe what happened in the LAUSD article, but I still feel it has the impact of an average snow day. Nate • (chatter) 09:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't get a ping, but coming across this again I still stand by my delete and merge vote. I know Jax these news articles are a touchy subject (since this), but even if a subject is covered it doesn't mean its article worthy by itself WP:NOTNEWS. Besides, these threats happen a lot which has even been stated by news sources. Adog104 Talk to me 21:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no merge or redirect, total non-event as said above. TaylorMoore2 (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this had some long-lasting effect, maybe. But it doesn't. You can put the same stuff in the LAUSD article on the grounds that it was the first time it ever happened. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2015 (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/2015_Los_Angeles_Unified_School_District_closure&oldid=1137519342"