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. Numerically, it's 11 to 7 in favor of a redirect, a clear majority but not on its face clear consensus. In terms of arguments, the question is whether this has enough sustained, substantial coverage to escape the one-event clause. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, which means I can't discount either side's views, and so we have no consensus at this time. Sandstein 21:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Ashli Babbitt

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Shooting of Ashli Babbitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content fork duplicating the text of Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Shooting of Ashli Babbitt, but divorced from due context. Feoffer (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the event of Ashli's death is certainly notable according to the many sources available. The discussions you are referring to are not focusing on the notability of the subject given the recent reliable sources. You must be unaware of Donald Trump's recent tribute to Ashli Babbitt in his video message. This made more news like this. Also, findings are released by the Police on 10 November 2021. There is still more. Are you sure that "No further information is available about her or the event now"? --Mhhossein talk 03:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see in those sources, no. Trump name dropping to drum up support from his followers is nothing notable (no different than the Proud Boys trying to make a martyr of her). The WaPo and Salon articles are mere mentions using her as one of several examples (no additional content). As for the "findings released by police" that you claim, a couple newly released cell phone videos from January 6th is not additional information, only additional copies of the same information. A separate article is still WP:UNDUE, and fails WP:BIO1E and WP:10YEARTEST. From those sources, the most we could add to the content we already have on Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack is a sentence about Trump mentioning her. - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the very fact that the news is getting updated by various aspects of the event from time to time. What you just called "Trump name dropping to drum up support from his followers", may be important for others but this is not even the core part of our decision making, since Trump's action, for instance, has been covered by sources. --Mhhossein talk 16:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing discussion doesn't imply a fork is merited. Feoffer (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quick reminder of what the guideline actually says: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. We seem to all agree that coverage of the shooting is warranted; it's a question of where in the family of articles related to the capitol attack this material should occur. VQuakr (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, notability is not your concern here. Then, what do you mean by "it's better covered at 2021 United States Capitol attack"? --Mhhossein talk 03:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline says: "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Which of "adequate sourcing", "significant coverage" or 'suitability for the encyclopedia' is an issue here? --Mhhossein talk 03:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Content forking is the issue. We already have an article on this topic -- a new subarticle should be created only once consensus for a split has been generated at Talk:Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack. Feoffer (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: you beg the question by assuming one of those three must apply, when that's not what the guideline says. But as it happens, the third. Even though there's plenty of sourcing to meet the GNG, we're better off covering it in an article that also covers the other events of that day. VQuakr (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you'all think the GNG is met here, then you need to have a strong argument explaining it is not suitable to have it alone. @Feoffer: No forking has happened here. It is a common practice, supported by the guidelines, to create pages for notable events. You can find dozens 'killing of ... ', 'Death of ... ', 'Killing of ... ' and etc. --Mhhossein talk 02:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"No forking?" You literally copied the pre-existing article's text. Feoffer (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The difference being that while Richard III of England and Murad I also have their own articles, where you can find historical info not related to their manner of death in battle, no such article exists for Babbitt. And since the background info on her, which sheds light on her later actions, is not appropriate for the Law enforcement response article, forking her shooting article makes sense, if only for that reason alone. StonyBrook (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that Ashli Babbitt is somehow notable enough for her own article outside of the event? - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. Babbitt is not notable outside of the shooting. However, her background information is valuable to understand what led to the shooting, and it doesn't fit anywhere except in a standalone article. StonyBrook (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You make a valid point. But a minor point. Not important enough a thing to warrant a separate article. First of all although this information is okay, we can live without it. It's only... somewhat valuable. And if we deem it valuable enough despite not fitting in with the surrounding prose, we can still include it as a note ref. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of room to incorporate additional biographical details in the existing article if they're relevant. Feoffer (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your contention that this was a small event. It was a large event within a larger event. No one suffered a shooting death in and around the Capitol building that day except Ashli Babbitt. How often does a shooting death occur within the U.S. Capitol building? To quote from the above guideline: The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Now, no one is arguing here to create an Ashli Babbitt; the argument being made here is WP:WEIGHT: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. I contend that this event-within-an-event was a significant one, and, just to rehash what I said above, it is doing a good job right now being a repository for all the added information. StonyBrook (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using my vote! to soapbox is something that should be discouraged. I'm not going to say anything else besides the keeps are being argued for some kind of bizarre memorial rather than on the topic's merits. Nate • (chatter) 22:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A rebuttal in a policy discussion, while quoting different policies, is not soapboxing; and this is no less WP:MEMORIAL than any other notable shooting article. - StonyBrook (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You used my short vote! to write something you knew would not change my vote! in any real manner. It's soapboxing, and it's against basic AfD guidelines. Nate • (chatter) 23:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above could only be a possibility if you were the only one reading this thread. And even if you were, no one is coercing you to change your opinion. But I am generally curious as to the rule you are referring to because I could not find it, so a link to where it says debating policy is disallowed in the Afd guideline would be helpful to myself and possibly others as well. StonyBrook (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. To do NPOV coverage of the Babbit shooting, you have to discuss both the breach and the backpack bomber. That article already exists, we shouldn't recreate it here. Feoffer (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Context always matters, but sometimes it really really matters. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Nov 26 edits, the sockpuppet also vandalized the main Capitol attack article on the same day, so should we now submit that one to Afd as well? StonyBrook (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should not, but at least by doing away with this unnecessary article that does not contribute to the purpose of Wikipedia because it doesn't help readers learn more about the topic (since it's already covered better in-context elsewhere in essentially the same amount of detail -- WP:CFORK), we are doing a good weighing of pros and cons -- one problem less for free. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using that logic, we should delete any article topic that bothers people, but WP:NOTCENSORED. Right or left wing talk is not pertinent to a discussion about a notable shooting death. StonyBrook (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Somedifferentstuff: I think, neutrally written, it is a monument to the incredible severity of the situation that took place that day. It does need to be cleaned up significantly though. ––FormalDude talk 01:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the reliable sources dedicated to 'Shooting of Ashli Babbitt', it really needs a stand alone page.--Mhhossein talk 05:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For one, we have in-depth sourcing on Wessel that Babbit lacks; Horst was born on Oct 9, what day was Ashli born? Nobody knows or cares. Horst obviously passes ten year test, Babbit does not. Additionally, Babbit has living family, so there's BLP implications that Wessel lacks. This has already been discussed over and over and over again (there are more discussions, if you care to search). Feoffer (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. Miniapolis 23:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the above comment. It must be taken into account that throughout the discussion, from nomination until the (ostensibly approaching) end, the redirect side had consistently not based their arguments on notability, instead basing them on other very relevant policy considerations, while the keep side mostly tried to bypass these arguments stressing notability. This being a strawman, I'm of a view that under WP:DISCARD the closer could discard some !votes (The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: ... those that are logically fallacious ...). Hypothetically it could have been that there was substantive contention around what the controlling policy was, but majorly, the keep side's argument did not reflect on WP:N itself saying: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Indeed, the redirect side itself cited this guideline. So this is not really a split in the community about what the controlling policy should be (it's just a classic strawman...). In the past discussions cited above by Adolphus79, this was generally seen as a content organization problem resolved through merger/redirect, reinforcing that the community at large has recognized that this is how this content should be treated, and which considerations are the most important. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2021 (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.
Category