Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gas leak phone call scam

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. Courcelles (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gas leak phone call scam

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

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

Relatively minor news story; no calls like this have been reported in reliable sources since the initial wave of calls in 2016 wizzito | say hello! 06:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Arizona, California, Indiana, Minnesota, and Oklahoma. wizzito | say hello! 06:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A perusal of the deletion policy (DP) suggests that the only rationale to which the nominator might've been referring was number eight, failing the notability guideline's nutshell requirement of "over a period of time", and for me, 10.29 weeks is sufficient. I recommend keeping the article, unless other DP reasons suggest otherwise. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep: per Fourthords. I'd maybe support if there was a more clear reason for deletion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Not sure what makes this more notable than any other similar incident that it even warrants an article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the policy at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I'm not sure which of the four points you're invoking. Are you saying this article is (1) serving as original reporting, (2) routine news coverage of "announcements, events, sports, or celebrities", (3) unduly biographical, or (4) "celebrity gossip and diary" material? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" // Timothy :: talk 03:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure why you're replying on behalf of Beemer69. Might you have intended to include this in your input at the bottom of the page? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Six prank phone calls = WP:NOTNEWS; it also fails WP:NCRIME, "Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." The above fails WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:LASTING. // Timothy :: talk 03:02, 13 April 2023 (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.