Wikipedia:Too soon to delete

Too often, a situation occurs around the following lines:

• An event occurs.
• A wide variety of news organizations cover it in various ways, clearly meeting the general notability guideline.
• Seeing the coverage, an editor creates a Wikipedia article about it.
• Another editor nominates the article for deletion, citing WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON, and other such policies, guidelines, and essays.
• A plethora of editors, established and new, chime in with their own rationales to keep or delete.
• This all happens very quickly, sometimes within a day.

Usually, what happens next is a long, drawn-out discussion with no clear consensus. Why? Because sometimes, it's too soon to delete an article. Editors should consider a move to draft as an alternative to deletion. Contentious discussions are a strong sign that a draftify might be a good solution.

The issue of sustained coverage

The main crux of the deletion arguments in this case is WP:SUSTAINED, which states that "[n]otable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time". The problem with deleting articles so quickly is that there is no way of telling whether the current news coverage will be sustained. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; just because an editor believes there will or won't be sustained coverage doesn't mean we should give credence to that speculation, let alone that that speculation will be true. Thus, editors should hold off on nominating an article for deletion under such arguments until they can make a clear case for them, and the best way to do that is to wait and see. If someone does nominate an article for deletion under these circumstances, the best course of action is to close the discussion and renominate once the situation is more clear.

An example

On April 19, 2024, Maxwell Azzarello self-immolated outside a New York courthouse where the selection of jurors for the criminal case People v. Trump was occurring. At 12:06 UTC, an article on the immolation was created. Only five and a half hours later, at 17:35 UTC, it was nominated for deletion. Much debate ensued, with many comparing this event to the self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell that had occurred only two months earlier, which was also politically motivated. However, since the deletion discussion was opened so early, despite many editors offering their predictions, there was no way of knowing if the coverage would be significant and sustained. Eventually, the discussion was closed as keep, but without prejudice to renominate later when the situation became more clear. Sure enough, when the article was nominated again in a month, editors had a clear consensus that the coverage that had emerged was not enough, and the article was merged and redirected.

When this doesn't apply

• If the coverage at the time is merely WP:ROUTINE or WP:SENSATIONAL, then it doesn't contribute to the article's notability in the first place.

Too soon to delete, and too soon for an article. Move to draft

Sometimes its too soon to delete, but it is also too soon for an article. Editors should consider a third option: moving to draft (WP:DRAFTIFY). Sometimes topics need time and space from an event in order for sources to emerge which best cover the topic. Moving the article to draft can give the article the time it needs to incubate and develop. No consensus discussions are a strong sign that draftify would be a good solution.

See also

• Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Don't rush to delete articles
• Wikipedia:Too soon, the essay this is a response to.
• Wikipedia:Not too soon, another essay on deletion
• Wikipedia:Before they were notable, to show there is no way of predicting notability.
• Wikipedia:Don't move yet, essay on being too soon to move