Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Western Complex shooting

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. No consensus for a particular action has emerged in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Western Complex shooting

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

There doesn't seem to be any notability demonstrated from this event, which in retrospect is just a smaller, toned-down version of the 2015 Waco shootout. In fact, this article is modeled after the Waco shootout article, which tells me this was created because this sounded like said shootout. Parsley Man (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parsley, did you notice that these are biker gangs made up of police and military, active and ex? I ask because it does seem to be generating deeper and broader coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that has to do with establishing even a trace of notability... Parsley Man (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might have brought it to AFD because you had missed this aspect. I missed it, at first. It does contribute insofar as it contributes to the broad, deep, ongoing coverage that this event attracted. A brawl between two "ordinary" biker gangs might well have gotten merely routine coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not miss it. But the amount of coverage demonstrated so far has not been helpful in establishing notability. Parsley Man (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep; I would keep this for now, even though information may be missing. Note to nominator, a number of articles are similar in layout due to the similarity of events taking place (which some layouts are encouraged by guidelines set out by Wikiprojects such as WP:CITIES). But this won't stop it being WP:NOTNEWS. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 01:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Lasting effects. I do not see anything coming of this. If it results in some sort of crack-down on gangs, I could see it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - for now. good sourcing and event got plenty of attention. and "lasting effects" Richard-of-Earth? it happened a week ago, do you got a magic ball?.BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That's the question, isn't it? Whose "magic ball" do we trust here -- the one that says the event will have lasting effects or the one that says it won't? My own magic ball says that this debate will get re-listed. If something noteworthy turns up by then, I'll be happy to reconsider my recommendation. But for now, WP:NOTNEWS. (By the way, Adog104, rating the article as C-class seems overly generous. But maybe that will be moot in a few days.) NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I admit that I had missed this story entirely until it showed up at AFD. So I searcher. here: [1] here: [2] and here:[3] are articles that, in addition to those already on page, show notability of this crime, which is far form being the kind of "routine" coverage described in WP:NOTNEWS, which are detailed under WP:EVENT section WP:ROUTINE, but often misinterpreted. I think we need to take WP:RAPID into account, and not rush to delete on the basis of personal opinions re: whether an event currently receiving coverage that is WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE will also prove to receive WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Note, however, that these are indicators; it is not necessary that an event have all three. No recent even can prove that it will have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, so we put away our crystal balls and keep articles that, like this one, are currently generating wide and substantive coverage that, in this case, goes beyond routine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait (keep for now) - too early to make a determination per WP:NEVENT; maybe come back to it in a month or two. ansh 666 09:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.20.220 (talk) 02:17, 11 February 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.