Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 East Texas Church Burnings

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. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 10:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 East Texas Church Burnings

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

WP:SYNTH. There's nothing that indicates that any of these fires are linked. Minimal sources to boot. Author added it to yesterday's current events portal without consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Very poorly sourced. None of the sources put these fires together and says they have anything in common. If the article is retained, it should be moved to correct capitalization "2010 East Texas church burnings" --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ah, TenPound beat me to it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forbes magazine is reporting that eight of the fires are the result of arson [1]

The ATF has now said these fires are all the work of a person or a group. [2]

More that one of these fires has been set on the same night in the same community.

I have used a number of sources.

And the article needs improving not removal.

It's also worth pointing out that there is and was an article on the Haiti relief effort while it was happening.

--Dashbullder (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For now, WP:NOTNEWS until a culprit or pattern of some kind is found or it becomes much worse. At this point it's all speculation and the cable news talking heads opining. Nate • (chatter) 05:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The creator of this and other articles cannot seem to grasp that Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper. That's too bad. JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, per [3]. If the ATF links eight of the fires to a "a serial arsonist or group of arsonists", it warrants a single article imo. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ugh. The ATF comments do lend some credence to the idea of an arson spree, as opposed to a series of similar events - so I can see the notability. But the article in its present form does fail WP:SYNTH, in that it draws connections between the incidents where the sources do not. So, we should rewrite the entire article, in the form "The 2010 East Texas Church Burnings are a string of arson incidents focused on churches in East and Central Texas." then a section about the series and the investigation, then a section about the incidents themselves (perhaps with a bulleted list). The caveat - we need stronger sources than a four-line article about the ATF comments, and those sources are thin on the ground. The ATF mention is this morning's, though - perhaps more sources will come out during this debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case I would suggest renaming the article. If the burnt churches are in not only in eastern Texas but also in central Texas, 2010 Texas church burnings would be more appropriate than 2010 East Texas church burnings. The title definitely needs to be uncapsed. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not everything that is currently making the news is barred by WP:NOTNEWS. I think it meets the criteria of coverage outside the local area, such as in the New York Times [4], the Washington Post [5], USA Today [6], the Wall Street Journal [7]. The Post is an AP report, the NYT, USAToday and WSJ are all from their own correspondents. Mandsford (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, referenced story. Needs expansion, but notable enough for a start. Dayewalker (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable based on the sources given by Mandsford above. Everyking (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is in poor shape, but all we need are headings and ref tags instead of external links. The incidents should not be in point form and could be written in a separate section while the lead needs more information. ~A H 1^(TCU) 22:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:N/CA. Has received independent coverage in multiple national news sources: CNN, USA Today, New York Times, Wall Street Journal. I think some people have an overly expansive notion of what WP:NOTNEWS forbids; it specifically notes that "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" (emph. mine) is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not say that any subject suitable for a Wikipedia article must have sources outside of news media. Chuck (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and as far as the article title goes, in addition to uncapsing it and possibly removing "East," I also think "arsons" would be better than "burnings." Chuck (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2010 (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.