Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Philadelphia shooting

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=2022 Philadelphia shooting}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=2022 Philadelphia shooting}})

Non-notable crime. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EFFECT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Pennsylvania. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete - It is painfully difficult to find sourcing for one particular mass shooting event in Philly for obvious reasons. That said, I can find nothing that suggests either WP:SUSTAINED or WP:EFFECT for this event, so it fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT as WP:NOTNEWS. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete another routine shooting, in a city that's become known for such types of crimes. Three people is about what you'd expect from such an event. The last part reads like a memorial, which really isn't suitable for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• None of these points address anything in WP:DEL-REASON. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• :Agree with The ed17, these are not reasons to justify deletion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• :Does not meet Sustained,NotNews particularly. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep for very obviously passing WP:GNG with lengthy stories that are directly about the topic in a variety of news outlets, [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/us/philadelphia-shooting.html including] The New York Times. Thebiguglyalien, from your posts at WP:ITNC I get that you have far-out views on NOTNEWS, but this isn't it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• :Sadly, current policy does not consider {{tq|lengthy stories that are directly about the topic in a variety of news outlet}} as a stand-alone reason for inclusion. You also need to satisfy the rest of WP:NEVENT like WP:EFFECT, WP:PERSISTENCE, etc. This simply does not meet the minimum policy guidelines. Sorry & Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• ::Literally the first bullet point in NEVENT references GNG. And if you really want to go down the persistence road, I've just added a source that [https://www.audacy.com/kywnewsradio/news/local/philadelphia-south-street-mass-shooting-1-year-anniversary looked back on the event one year later]. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• ::[https://www.fox29.com/news/south-street-bouncing-back-nearly-1-year-after-deadly-shooting And here's another]. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• :{{u|The ed17}}, the logical conclusion of your argument is that just about anything ever published in newspapers is worthy of its own article. You can't use primary sources like breaking news to say something meets GNG. If you have an issue with that, then you need to propose a change to WP:GNG, not make a policy-ignoring !vote. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• ::Please don't put words into my mouth. WP:GNG is the north star, and that says "{{green|A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.}}" (emphasis in original). This topic ticks every one of those checkboxes thanks to in-depth coverage from gold-standard reliable sources. WP:SBST gives additional guidance, and there are sources used here that contain coverage which is far more than just routine. (Also, news reports are almost always secondary sources. For something like this, witnesses are the primary sources. See our article on secondary sources and WP:PST.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• :::You may be interested in WP:RSBREAKING: {{tq|All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution: see {{Section link|Wikipedia:No original research|Primary, secondary and tertiary sources}}, {{Section link|Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources|Examples of news reports as primary sources}}.}} Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• ::::A fair point, and I apologize for misremembering and therefore overstating the case for them. It doesn't undercut the main thrust of my argument, as the NYT source in particular is one that takes a step back and looks at the wider picture, and I've shown that there has been additional coverage of the shooting well after it happened. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• :::::You may also want to look again at WP:NEVENT, specifically WP:EVENTCRIT. Yes, WP:GNG is mentioned, but as part of a longer sentence, {{tq|Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline...}} (emphasis added). I just can't see enduring historical significance in this. Were major news laws enacted specifically due to this event? Did society change in some way that sources attribute to it? I don't see that in sources. The follow-ups articles you cite are not {{tq|interpretation[s] of primary source material}} (emphasis in original) as discussed in WP:PRIMARYNEWS as strong sources for notability; they are adding new primary material about how locals feel about the event a year later. If anything, they show that the impact is localised both geographically and over time which argues against a stand-alone article. Also, WP:NOTNEWS really applies strongly here in that {{tq|most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.}} There just is not a policy way around the fact that this particular mass-shooting event does not meet the clear policy criteria for inclusion. Sorry & Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• ::::::"{{green|Were major news laws enacted specifically due to this event? Did society change in some way that sources attribute to it?}}" I've never seen that guideline applied with that high of a bar, but if you believe that's the case, I look forward to your nominations of many more of Wikipedia's event articles in the near future. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• :::::::I'm sorry that you don't like the policy, {{u|The ed17|Ed}}, but those are literally the examples used in WP:NEVENT. There are many other ways to reach historical significance. If you can explain to me how this particular mass shooting has the historical significance as mentioned in policy, fine. But I can't see it. With the sources presented, it simply cannot pass the policy threshold. Sorry, Last1in (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• ::::::::We'll agree to disagree then, particularly with how that policy is actually applied in practice. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per GNG and The ed17 above. Entry needs a bit of work, but I see no reason for deletion at this time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per Ed. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. WWGB (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete To the (very limited) extent that the coverage of this event falls outside a two-day window, it is WP:ROUTINE. As such, it fails WP:NOTNEWS. --JBL (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. This fails WP:NOTNEWS. The claim of WP:SUSTAINED coverage is based on two retrospectives in local news sources, resting on brief comments from local traders/residents on how the street/area has "picked up" after the shooting. This seems to be the only/main impact. There's no analysis of why the shooting happened. The shooting's mentioned in the South Street, Philadelphia article. Maybe merge some of the content into that article as an AtD? Rupples (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per The ed17's reasons. Bzzzing (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• 'Delete Cant see how a common and generic shooting in America is notable. It fails WP:SUSTAINED and its not really news in the traditional sense, so failing WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:DEL14. It is just another generic example of the gross and blackest evil that is allowed to exist in America, assuming you believe in that sort of thing. scope_creep^Talk 12:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• :No surprise, another delete vote from Scope creep on any article I've ever worked on... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• ::Can we not do this? {{u|Scope creep}}, your editorializing in an AfD discussion is entirely inappropriate. {{u|Another Believer}}, please at least try to respect WP:CIVIL; if you don't want editors to cast delete !votes on articles you work on, check to make sure they meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT before you work on them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

::::Please, spare me the lecture on civility and direct your comment at the editor who clearly enjoys hounding me, calling me a liar, casting aspersions, and voting delete in any article by me brought to AfD. I've had enough, and I've asked Scope creep to leave me alone many times. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

:::They're has been 470 mass shootings in America this year already. I don' see crime articles as being particularly notable, since each event is so generic in terms of its commonality. The same thing happens everywhere all the time. There is very little that differentiates them and the reporting is exactly the same in almost every instance. Ultimately folk on Wikipedia who create these articles are not interested in the special and unique, instead decide to record the mundane and common. Lastly, I never knew this was an article that Another Believer's wrote. But either way, it is just another generic crime article that is exactly the same as all the others. scope_creep^Talk 16:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

::::User:scope creep, don't you look at the page history when evaluating articles for AFD? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

:::::No I never look at article contribution history, there is no value in it. The first thing I look at is the article content, then the references, then do a WP:BEFORE to see if there is anything else that can support the article. To repeat the message above. I've no interest in Wikipedia of becoming a directory of shooting's or crimes, which it seems to be starting to do. It puzzles me why folk seem to latch onto individual instances of criminal events, as dreadful as they are, and think that somehow that because they are heavily reported that somehow make them notable. It doesn't. All crimes are heavily reported, even when they are identical. At best it makes them instances of a single type of a crime event, that crimologists don't even look at over historical time, never mind historians of crime and its effects. At the end ,we will end up with reams, 10000's of crime articles that are almost identical in there nature, while the real articles, academic articles that examine crime and history of crime don't get written. Instead its this low-hanging fruit. Its junk really. scope_creep^Talk 06:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

::::::Which is the purpose of WP:NEVENT, which no one else seems to read, much less follow. The word, 'and', appears to be of particular difficulty for many editors: {{tq|have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline,}} is the big one, as echoed in the Background section. {{tq|A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).}} Attempts to explain any of that ends with (at best) a perfunctory 'agree to disagree' as you can see above. Since policy arguments are seen by most closers as no more persuasive than emotional pleas, we are ending up exactly where you say, with many thousands of articles on shock news. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

::::::{{u|Scope creep}}, I wish I could just copy-and-paste this for my justification whenever I nominate a non-notable crime article for deletion (there are many more that I would've liked to have nominated, but I try not to clog up AfD). Replace a few words and it also applies to accidents, disasters, "incidents", etc. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Opposed your view on a couple of "accident" AfDs in July using WP:RAPID as rationale, while admitting they were within the remit of NOTNEWS. My thinking was that if in a year's time nothing much had resulted from or been subsequently reported on the incidents, I'd likely go for delete in a follow up AfD. Brief particulars of this shooting are listed in List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022, though why such comprehensive listings of these shootings are being maintained is itself questionable. We're already up to 23 separate US mass shooting articles for 2023, which looks like a record year in terms of numbers. This one from 2022 being gang related, suggests little or no political impact, so a year later we no longer need a separate article, the brief note in the list covers the main aspects, but on balance it was acceptable to publish an article on this immediately after the incident. Rupples (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep per Ed's well thought out logic and rebuttals. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per NOTNEWS and SUSTAINED. A burst of coverage at the time, then crickets. Only local coverage afterward on the one-year anniversary. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. This article passes the WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. The case to delete appears rooted in WP:IDONTLIKEIT for which prove of WP:SUSTAINED is brushed aside. gidonb (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• :Can you explain {{tq|prove of WP:SUSTAINED}}, please? Other than two retrospective articles that are more about the community reactions a year later, I couldn't find anything. If you could add your sources, that could sway the conversation. Also, please remember that events have special guidelines under WP:NEVENT that are equally important. Lastly, all but one Delete !vote specifies a policy objection, so could you expand on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT point as well, please? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

:::Your reaction illustrates what I just said: The sustained coverage has been identified, yet it is brushed aside. If anyone else wants to support my opinion they are also welcome to it! gidonb (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

::::I agree with Gidonb, not to mention court proceedings will continue. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

::::{{u|gidonb}}, you didn't answer either question, so I'll rephrase: what WP:SUSTAINED sources are you talking about? They aren't on this page, and they aren't in the article. The only ones here are local mentions of the fact that the event happened with no analysis or integration, nor mention of any WP:LASTING impact... or even lasting interest. In fact, the articles themselves explain why this event cannot pass WP:NEVENT (emphasis added in all): {{tq|Despite last year’s violence, she wasn’t shocked to learn that it had happened. “There’s constant shootings. And it’s like, ‘Oh, there was one only two blocks from us. Oh, this is a carjacking.’”}} and {{tq|“family and friends mention it,” he said, “but South Street is still packed every Thursday through Sunday.”}} and {{tq|"It slowed down dramatically because the traffic slowed down, but as of now it's picking up to where it used to be," Maverick said. Sarah Cowell from the South Street Headhouse District told FOX 29 no businesses closed as a direct result of the South Street shooting, and 38 new business have opened since 2022.}} This is the poster child for a terrible crime that, sadly, is simply not notable. I would also still appreciate some sort of explanation of your WP:IDONTLIKEIT assertion. It seems the only people who are providing policy specific are the deletionists (a group in which it is extremely odd to find myself). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

:::::Agree with you that the two sources produced to support SUSTAINED don't cut the mustard. Those two sources are local media reports so don't contribute to notability under WP:GEOSCOPE. For the article to be retained I'd want to see coverage outside Philadelphia. However, User:Another Believer may have a point on the court proceedings, which could feasibly be reported more widely. That's why I'm uncertain as to what's the best course of action at present and have refrained from !voting. Rupples (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: I'm sorry to prolong this AFD but I see No Consensus, leaning Delete. It seems to all rest on WP:SUSTAINED here. Is a Redirect a possibility?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The current !vote is 7:6 in favour of Keep. Since there is no consensus (to delete; this is a delete discussion) then surely the default is keep. WWGB (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• You could really see it either way depending on how you interpret guidelines like WP:NOTNEWS. I think it might be more productive to have a community discussion to more clearly define WP:NCRIME on which cases meet on notability and which do not, looking at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 for other examples. Also, it might be worth moving articles such as this over to Wikinews instead. - Indefensible (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• :I would definitely support either option, a merge into List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 or movement to Wikinews. The subject and sources meet policy for either (or both). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• ::Oppose merge to list (most of the entries there are a single sentence) or move to Wikinews. I agree with WWGB here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• ::It doesn't look like an article in Wikinews would get the level of readership and exposure as one here, based on page views. Don't see much point in merging to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022, other than to add the outcome of the court case as the salient facts of the shooting are already mentioned there. A redirect to that article or to South Street, Philadelphia would however be appropriate and is preferable to outright deletion. If the page history is retained, the article could always be 'resurrected' should anything of significance result from the court case. It would maintain the integrity of NOTNEWS/SUSTAINED/GEOSCOPE which in my view this article is not compliant with, notwithstanding it passing GNG on sources. Rupples (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• :::Does pageviews really matter that much? The main point is the content lives somewhere across Wiki rather than just being deleted. The main suggestion I gave above was actually to improve WP:NCRIME which is largely useless right now. Once better thresholds are defined, it would become much clearer which articles meet the criteria for inclusion and which do not so that we do not have as many of these split decisions that end in no consensus. For the cases which do not meet, we could simply move the content to Wikinews and then cross-link it on the list page. - Indefensible (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• Redirect to South Street, Philadelphia or delete. Not convinced by the Keep arguments, none of which have addressed WP:EFFECTS. WP:EVENTCRITERIA asks us to consider whether an event has longstanding or historical impact and the scope of coverage. This has not been demonstrated. Indeed, as User:Last1in has astutely pointed out, the retrospective 1 year anniversary sources lately added to the article imply the opposite. Police presence in the area increased for a few months, then returned to normal. Trade diminished in the aftermath, then recovered. Locals naturally scared to venture out, but confidence has largely returned. In summary, no lasting, significant impact and any temporary impact confined to the immediate neighbourhood, so WP:GEOSCOPE another indicator of notability is not satisfied. That's why I suggest a redirect to South Street, Philadelphia as an AtD — a bit more detail of this incident could be added there, but a full merge would give disproportionate weight to the incident. Also consider WP:DEPTH, yes, sources report the incident but where's the analysis that gives context to the shooting? Failing support for redirect, on policy grounds, it's delete. Rupples (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per NOTNEWS and SUSTAINED. AryKun (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
• Given the response to my relist, I'm leaving this discussion for another closer to handle. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.