Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability in the world. For many events, if there might be lasting significance, we often err on the side of considering them notable. Wikipedia is popular enough that the act of retaining an article may even play a role in its continued significance. For a criminal act committed, in some part, for the publicity, Wikipedia should not assume lasting significance. Wikipedia should not contribute to the attention given to the incident when policy doesn't demand it. When it comes to crimes, lasting significance should be demonstrated before we have an article.

Wikipedia's notability guideline for events includes a section about breaking news, including two primary pieces of guidance: "don't rush to create articles" and "don't rush to delete articles." The latter, known best by its shortcut, WP:RAPID, is often cited at articles for deletion as a reason to keep an article on a recent event, based on the possibility that it will continue to receive coverage in reliable sources and as such should be given the benefit of the doubt.

The extent to which we can predict lasting significance varies. With some topics, it becomes clear quickly that they will have lasting significance so we keep them, mostly uncontroversially. With other topics, it seems quite certain that they won't have lasting significance, and they are deleted. In between those is a very large gray area of events which may or may not have lasting significance, and Wikipedians differ regarding the extent to which we should err on the side of either keeping and revisiting later or deleting and allowing recreation later.

There is considerable research on the role of the media in influencing and/or motivating acts of terrorism, mass shootings, and other kinds of crime. It is uncontroversial that there are perpetrators of crimes who desire media coverage of their acts (for example, ideologically motivated violence). As one of the most popular websites in the world, Wikipedia plays a significant role in coverage of these events, amplifying existing coverage and contributing to a story's prominence directly. Wikipedia acknowledges its own influence and potential for harm in some ways, such as with the biographies of living people policy, which requires users to be particularly cautious in the application of certain Wikipedia policies and guidelines to content when writing about a living person.

Wikipedia should cover notable crimes and notable events, but users should be particularly cautious in the application and interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines to these articles. Terrorist attacks, mass shootings, bomb threats, etc. often have political or ideological motivations. Because Wikipedia follows what other reliable sources pay attention to, Wikipedia will inevitably have articles on incidents that have lasting significance in reliable sources. Wikipedia should not, however, contribute to the publicity of a crime before lasting significance can be demonstrated. In those cases, it is insufficient and potentially harmful to simply argue to keep "per WP:RAPID." With these articles in particular, we should exercise caution and err on the side of WP:DELAY. To keep because of WP:RAPID functions not just to preserve content, but also to err on the side of giving the perpetrator what he/she wants when it's not actually mandated by Wikipedia policy.

• Wikipedia:Don't assume lasting significance for instances of self-harm