Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Light Lounge 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Light Lounge Shooting

A random shooting is not notable IMHO! Only a few Canadian local media outlets talked about the incident Szvest 15:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

• Delete I shudder to think of how many articles could be done for shooting in Baltimore, MD. Wildthing61476 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, people are shot here in New Orleans every day. L0b0t 17:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm all for the delete, but I think it's important to note that notability is context related. In my hometown, a shooting like this would probably not make the evening news. If, on the other hand, it happened in Vatican City, CNN would have live coverage for days. I'm not saying this bias is good or right, but it exists and we need to allow for it. -bobby 18:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Re comment - That may be true but we can't compare a notable place such as the Vatican or the White House to a neigbourhood house. -- Szvest 11:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The CBC and the Globe and Mail are not "local" media outlets. Both are national. Just thought to point that out, in case it matters. Edward Wakelin 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Multiple murders are notable, wherever they happen. The fact they happen a lot in Washington, New Orleans or Baltimore is a sad comment on the United States, not a reason to delete. -- Necrothesp 02:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, Wikipedia is not the newspaper. If this incident leads to new legislation, or someone notable is involved maybe. As it is, I can't see a reason to have this in the encyclopedia. L0b0t 02:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Although this got national play it isn't considered as serious as, say, the Dawson College murders in Montreal. We can't have articles on every incident of this nature; they have to have some national or international notability. So far, this incident doesn't. The best I could suggest is referencing it in the main article on Edmonton in a crime subsection. 23skidoo 03:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Shootings are not uncommon in Edmonton, and there is nothing whatsoever that distinguishes this one from any other. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and a random murder is about as indiscriminate as you can get. Resolute 14:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a news report database or a police records archive. Media coverage does not automatically mean encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiNews. This incident is clearly notable news, but it is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. WikiNews is the most appropriate place for this. I think one needs to differentiate between encyclopedic current events from those that have a low long-term impact on society - the former belong in WP, the latter in WikiNews or nowhere at all. Mindmatrix 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not very notable. —Brim 22:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• This may have potential to become keepable, if somebody can write a real article about it rather than a two-line stub. As currently written, however, it's pointless. Transwiki to Wikinews, but do so without prejudice against recreation here if it can be shown in the future that there's a legitimate reason to view this as encyclopedic. Not that I'll actually hold my breath or anything; this certainly isn't Dawson College. Bearcat 23:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Did we forget that we can't transwiki to Wikinews? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 22:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is news to me. Why couldn't we? It's a Wikimedia project; we transwiki to other Wikimedia projects all the time, why would this one be any different? Bearcat 00:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If I am not mistaken, Wikinews is under Creative Commons rather than the GFDL, thus disallowing Wikinews to replicate Wikipedia content. If an article on Wikinews were to be started on this subject, then it would have to be started from scratch, i.e. rewritten so as not to violate the GFDL. metaspheres 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I wasn't aware of that at all; excuse my ignorance. Reading over the WikiNews licence, it appears the issue is that WikiNews uses the by licence (attribution only), whereas GFDL is most similar to by-sa (see: Creative Commons licenses for info). Mindmatrix 18:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what you mean. The following page on meta pretty much clarifies everything: m:Wikinews/License. According ly CC-By content has one-way compatibility with GFDL, i.e. Wikinews content can be incorporated into Wikipedia, but not vice versa, and CC-SA is totally incompatible with GFDL, which is probably why they decided to go with the other one. I have no idea how solidly these licenses are followed, so I can't say whether or not there would be any objection on Wikinews if Wikipedia content would be posted there and if anyone would care about that, but technically it would be "against the rules," so to speak. For instance, there was a great deal of objection to GetWiki (a fork of MediaWiki) being released under CC rather than GFDL, but no further action was taken. So, I don't know. metaspheres 10:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This kind of stuff happens everyday, this is no exception. It is a small thing considered to the death toll everyday from shootings. IF someone actually had the time and put some effort into the article, i'll rethink. In perspective:

If I had a dollar for every shooting in LA...-ECH3LON 01:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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.