User:Dlugar/WP:NOTANTINEWS
Wikipedia is not Anti-News
[edit]Every time a new event happens that catches the attention of millions world-wide, an article describing that event inevitably gets created on Wikipedia. Almost as inevitably, that article is tagged for deletion, resulting in a lengthy discussion about notability and encyclopedic value, often at the moment when the largest number people are coming to Wikipedia to read that article. I've seen this happen with articles such as Virginia Tech massacre, Joe the Plumber, Murder of Annie Le, Colorado balloon incident, and more. This essay is intended to address the types of "delete" votes that come up on every page of this sort.
This is the most common rallying cry in the effort to delete the article. It often betrays a sentiment that Wikipedia should never have articles on recent news stories, or that it doesn't make sense to come to Wikipedia for encyclopedic coverage of recent news stories. That's not what WP:NOTNEWS says or implies. Rather, it says:
News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be.
If you offer up a "delete" vote citing WP:NOTNEWS, please state why you think this is "routine news coverage" or "tabloid journalism". I've seen topics with widespread, national, front-page coverage get inexplicably tagged with WP:NOTNEWS with not even an additional word in justification. If you're more concerned with the idea that "even when an event is notable, the individual may not be," (WP:BLP1E) consider making a merge vote rather than delete vote, urging editors to move the content on the individual's page to the event's page.
Also, when considering WP:NOTNEWS, recall that the front page of Wikipedia has a section called "In the news", which in addition to having generic encyclopedia articles about events in the news (such as a country or a person), frequently contains links to articles about events themselves which are still taking place and, essentially, breaking news. Having encyclopedic articles on breaking news stories is one of the functions of Wikipedia, so long as those stories are notable and have enough sources to enable encyclopedic writing.
This is the second common rallying cry in the effort to delete the article. The general notability guideline is that if the topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then it is notable. This may not mean it should be included in Wikipedia, but it probably means that WP:Notability is not a good argument against its inclusion.
I've noticed that many people cite WP:Notability when what they mean is that they personally don't think the topic should have gotten as much news coverage as it did, particularly in the mainstream news media, and therefore Wikipedia should buck the trend and refuse to cover such an unimportant story. Some also express the idea that widespread media coverage is exactly what the perpetrator(s) wanted, and so having a Wikipedia article on the topic is simple "adding fuel to the fire". These ideas violate WP:NPOV. The discussion shouldn't be about whether the topic should have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, but whether or not the topic has received such coverage. If it has, then WP:Notability is not a good argument against its inclusion in Wikipedia.
The other common argument citing notability is that this topic may be receiving significant coverage in reliable, independent sources now, "but in a week or so nobody will remember this stupid event." This goes hand-in-hand with the idea that the topic shouldn't have gotten the kind of news coverage it has. But WP:NTEMP clearly states that, "a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources". If you can show that the current coverage is indeed routine coverage, then WP:NOTNEWS takes precedence. But if the coverage is significant, not routine, and from reliable, independent sources, then that takes precedence over whether or not the mainstream media should have been covering such a (in your estimation) trivial event.
Surprisingly, I often see WP:BLP1E cited in discussions about whether to delete an article about an event. What WP:BLP1E says is that "a redirect of the person's name to the event article [is] usually the better option". If the article in question is for an individual's page, I would expect to see WP:BLP1E accompanied by a move or merge vote. If the article in question is for an article about an event, I don't expect to see WP:BLP1E mentioned at all.
My Plea
[edit]My plea to you is simple: wait a week. After a week, the media firestorm will have settled down and a consensus will build as to where exactly this article belongs. Yes, I realize that "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive substantial coverage in the future" (WP:NTEMP), but I'm talking about articles that are receiving substantial coverage right now. In a week's time, if this really was just the result of a "slow news day" and everybody has forgotten about this event, then your deletion request will flow speedily through the system. But maybe—just maybe—the substantial media coverage that we're seeing today will be evidence that this event is more than just a "flash in the pan" during a slow news cycle, the article will grow to become more encyclopedic, and it will eventually become a contribution to Wikipedia that we all can agree on.