Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Pennsylvania State Police Barracks attack

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 speedy keep. WP:SK#1. Merging and other editorial concerns can be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh666 21:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Pennsylvania State Police Barracks attack

2014 Pennsylvania State Police Barracks attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is completely redundant and therefore unnecessary. Most, if not all of this is essentially copy-and-pasted from the Eric Frein article, which describes this event better than this article ever could. I highly suggest a merge to the Eric Frein article. Parsley Man (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The event is notable apart from the man himself. It could use some work, but I'm not for deleting it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of work? Everything's already at the Eric Frein article, and if not, we can just merge any extra info over to said article. This event's notability has honestly been foreshadowed by the manhunt for Frein itself. Parsley Man (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems that this article should be about the attack, which certainly was notable in itself, and the Eric Frein article should be about the person. They are distinct and I think both notable. If anything, I'd go with Shawn in Montreal's suggestion of a reverse merge from Frein's article to the article about the event. It seems to be mostly about the attack and its aftermath and less about him biographically. I'm fine with two articles, but if consensus is for only having one, I would much rather it be this one than the Frein article as it currently stands. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect Yes, I'm also baffled by why we'd need 2 articles, one for the perpetrator and one for the attack. He's only notable for the attack, surely? Either merge or reverse merge... leaving behind a redirect so the attack (or in the case of a reverse merge, the shooter) can be retain its categorization. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parsley Man, I realize you were trying to help, but for the future, it's bad form to modify someone else's !vote at an Afd as you've done to mine. Yes, you've clarified it -- but it's not really in your rights to do it. But no worries. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oh, sorry. But to be honest, I for one misconstrued your "Support" vote as a "Keep" vote before I read it in full. I was afraid your vote would be misconstrued in the same way when it's being closed, so I thought I'd make it clear to everyone that that's what you meant. Parsley Man (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. And if fact, that did once happen to me, with a support being misconstrued. Anyway, I'm with you. No need for two articles! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable. good sourcing. There is specific info here also.BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind specifying that "specific info"? And I doubt that having two sources (both of which seem to be mostly local) is equal to "good sourcing". Parsley Man (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Responding as well here, this attack received international coverage [1]. The event itself is notable more so than the person. He's a criminal notable for one event. The event itself is what garnered him the notoriety rather than his involvement in it making it notability. Like I said above, I think there is a case for both meeting the inclusion standard, but if anything, Eric Frein should be merged into the article about the event, not vice versa. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Daily Mail is a tabloid, and therefore, an unreliable source. Please review WP:IRS. Parsley Man (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, my point was that it received international attention, but here are sources beyond the Daily Mail. The Guardian [2] [3] [4], TIME [5], the BBC [6]. You will note that all of these sources mention that he is being covered because of the shooting. The shooting is not being covered because of him. He gets his notoriety from the fact that he killed the people, and the manhunt that followed it. That manhunt is better described in an article about the attack itself in my opinion, than an article on the man. Like I said, I am fine with having both articles up, but the manhunt is logically a part of the aftermath of the shooting, and belongs in the article about the shooting. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still unacceptable. Please review WP:ONEEVENT. There is no need for two articles, and it's better off to keep Frein's article and delete this one since it's so superfluous and plagiarized. Parsley Man (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some civility would be appreciated here. I'm familiar with WP:ONEEVENT, and my reading of it is that in general the event not the perpetrator should be covered, which is the stated preference of the guideline. Yes, it does have multiple exceptions to this, but as I feel I have demonstrated above, this is a major event that received significant international coverage in major publications. As such WP:ONEEVENT does foresee the existence of two articles. You can disagree that this event falls under the part of the guideline that foresees two articles, but the existence of two articles is something that is foreseen in the guideline, and I am suggesting as a part of the AfD process that it does fall within that criteria. I think the significant international coverage makes it noteworthy enough. At the same time, if consensus does not exist for keeping two article, I am expressing my preference of a reverse merge from Eric Frein to this article, which is clearly within the stated preference of WP:ONEEVENT, and something that another editor in this thread has also suggested as a possibility. I'm also confused as to what plagiarism you are referring to. Is this a copy vio? If so, I will gladly support deleting per CSD G12. Right now, it looks like a standard article about the event that links to the article about the perpetrator, and cites it as the main article in that section. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let it be known that this article is a blatant violation of WP:BLPCRIME, claiming that Frein is the perpetrator even though the trial is not even over, without a conviction being made. Parsley Man (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively easy fix that I took a first pass at just now. If there are other areas where it needs to be clarified that the crimes are alleged and that he is the suspect who was charged, please let me know and I will work on fixing it further. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I call for a close. This was disruptive. Parsley Man (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge Per WP:CRIME this article should survive with the other article moving into here. - GalatzTalk 12:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event is notable, with sufficient news coverage to establish it as such. 2014 Pennsylvania State Police Barracks attack and Eric Frein are obviously related topics, but they are distinct enough that having two articles is perfectly reasonable. Although I wouldn't object to merging the two, from an editorial point of view I think two can work better. In either case, simple deletion of 2014 Pennsylvania State Police Barracks attack isn't appropriate. Peacock (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is obviously a notable event. I don't necessarily object to a merge, but per WP:CRIME, the Frein article should be merged here if we do that, not the other way around. Smartyllama (talk) 14:24, 26 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Pennsylvania_State_Police_Barracks_attack&oldid=1137518962"