Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Charles Vacca (2nd nomination)

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 keep. WP:SNOW keep: also, any personal, identifiable, or other information that must be hidden from public view can be revision deleted or oversighted. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 03:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Charles Vacca

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

This has been at AFD before but I'm not liking that the girl's parents have now been identified in the article. We should consider this again to see if we now have a consensus. The previous close said, "People disagree about whether this is an incident with long-lasting impact. I guess we'll have to wait and see..." Now that some time has passed, there doesn't seem to have been significant continuing coverage or consequences which would make this more than a routine shooting accident. The topic therefore fails policies such as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENT. Andrew D. (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've come here after removing that section on grounds of human decency. Seriously we shouldn't make it that easy to identify this nine year old. Whatever your views on gun control the identity of the child is not essential to the story but naming her parents risks indirectly identifying her. Regardless of whether consensus is with me or not I would request that section not be restored unless this discussion has consensus to do so - the information is in the article history. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep no valid deletion reason here. Lots of news coverage too. However caution should be taken, but WP:NOTCENSORship. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more detail to the nomination to indicate the policy-based reasons for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage lasted long after the event. However, I may vote delete on the 5th nomination, so keep it up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage? I'm not seeing much beyond the immediate event and what there is just seems to be journalistic, human-interest stuff. Andrew D. (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, just journalistic stuff, I admit that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...The genie is out of the bottle...The parents names are now in the history section and can be viewed by anyone with the wherewithal to do so. The only way to rectify this matter is to delete the article and then recreate it using a different name. Perhaps..."The Accidental Shooting of Charles Vacca".--RAF910 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "only way to rectify this matter" Huh? or we can just delete that line in the edit history. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for any misunderstanding...If someone clicks "View History" at the top of the page they can recall the parents names in the edit history. I'm afraid that there's no way that I know of to delete that information.--RAF910 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need admin rights to hide the edit history. You can bring it to Wikipedia:BLP noticeboard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering closing this discussion as I think you are looking for WP:REVDEL oder WP:OVERSIGHT to delete a single revision of the page, not the entire thing. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the page remains then you can't easily keep details from reappearing. It all needs to go. Andrew D. (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since anyone can edit any page of Wikipedia, we will have to delete all of Wikipedia. Someone might add their name to any/every page. The whole wiki concept needs to go. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Sorry, but there's nothing resembling a valid AfD statement in the nomination. The concerns about the paragraph should've been addressed on the talk page, BLPN or the Oversight team. Not AfD, on a obviously notable topic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more details to the nomination. My position is that the topic does not pass the relevant notability guideline: WP:EVENT. Andrew D. (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The incident was mentioned again yesterday in a paper reporting on the latest legislative action triggered by this incident. Thus the notability, and long-lasting influence on subsequent events, of the incident has been fairly well established. The identification of the parents must be speedily revdeled/oversighted, though; immediate action is certainly required there. Kraxler (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite good at finding sources but only found some news coverage of the event and immediate aftermath. If you have found a good recent source then please share some details so that we can verify it and understand the legislative context. Andrew D. (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was about to mention it, and then was called away IRL, and forgot it. It's ref # 18 in the article. And it seems I confused the publication date and the retrieval date. It was published actually 9 days ago, on March 16. Kraxler (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An argument can be had about names but no argument can be had about the existence of the article itself. ResMar 13:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Oversight the versions with the identifying information. The incident has lead to (potential) changes in Arizona law, as evidenced by the "Legislature" section of the article and the sources cited there. The event is notable. Versions with identifying information can be oversighted and removed from the article history. If there are concerns about the information creeping back in then pending changes review can be enabled. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced notable event. AlbinoFerret 19:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable based on sources. Everyking (talk) 21:23, 27 March 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.