Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Deriek Wayne Crouse (3rd 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 delete. —Darkwind (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Deriek Wayne Crouse

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

I have looked for sources on this shooting and it appears there was just a brief spike in news coverage after the shooting. The only apparent reason for it getting national news coverage is because of the Virginia Tech massacre. Beyond that tangential link, sources contain no meaningful contextual coverage that I can find, just a detailing of events. This is a classic WP:NOT#NEWS case for deletion. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and not indicative of enduring notability for the event. The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am having trouble believing the !votes at the previous AFDs. This is nothing but a routine crime, with routine coverage. There's nothing there that would elevate to anything resembling notability. The title should also be salted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#NEWS. Nothing special about this murder. A Google news search for "Deriek Wayne Crouse" comes up with only one result. JDDJS (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, you are claiming "NOTNEWS" while also citing a lack of current news articles about the subject? Huh? Everyking (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - Not notable. I suspect a bit of bad faith on some of the previous !votes in previous AfDs. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources establish notability beyond any doubt. "Routine crimes" do not receive that level of coverage. It doesn't matter why the story got national attention—what matters is that it did. It would be notable even if the reason was completely asinine. Everyking (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Received national media attention. Tiptoety ^talk 07:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something that got national and even international coverage. We don't have an article on it because WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:ROUTINE is explicitly meant to cover these types of situations. Geographical scope of coverage is the weakest argument for keeping possible because nowadays any number of minor criminal acts can get a brief flurry of coverage over a large geographical area. Obviously not every crime gets that kind of coverage, just those that play best before a wider audience either because it allows society to poke fun at the fatties or because it happened at some place where a far more notable crime happened.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thousands of people are murdered every year. WP policy is not to have articles on these events, unless sources discuss some larger importance than a crime and the death of a person. In this case it was a murder and a suicide, but still not uncommon. Borock (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This received significant media attention for some time, but not because of the event itself. Looking at WP:CRIME, the phrase that sticks out there is "historic event". I dont think this event passes that measurement. Yes there was coverage, a lot of it, but not because this event was historic. At its core, this was a murder of a police officer during a routine traffic stop. It received attention not because of the event itself but because it happened on a college campus, and a campus which had been the site of very notable gun violence years earlier. While the media may impart notability of this event from the 2007 Virgina Tech Shootings purely because of geography, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should as well. RadioFan (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was certainly tragic, and coverage was widespread, but the media attention only lasted a short time. No notability. Howicus (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would like to inform TDA that it's common procedure to notify an article creator when something is sent up for deletion. Now to my vote. Yes, delete, this wasn't what I had expected when I wrote the article back lo how long ago, media attention didn't last beyond, at the most, two weeks after the incident. Buggie111 (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:N/CA, "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources". The article is well referenced, and the case is covered by major media like cnn and bbc. For what matter the case is known, is not important, as the coverage is the criteria for notability. Grrahnbahr (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2013 (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.