Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS; does not appear to have any major consequences (hostages freed, gunman killed) and no lasting notability. —fetch ·comms 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an ideologically motivated crime which is, of course, the real reason why assorted Gorebots on this page want the article to disappear under various formalistic pretexts. The ideology - the pernicious idea that humans are a useless burden on the planet - lives on. James Lee was expressly cited - together with the Unabomber - as an extreme example of a wider school of murderous ideology in an opinion piece in the Telegraph newspaper in London, and will remain a historic reference point of homicidal global warmism. WikiFlier (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now it should be deleted then redone in about five days then we will have more information about the matter user mcdonaldsman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.166.28 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait one week...the event is not even 12 hours old. The New Raymie (t • c) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Shirley, you must be joking. It's true that "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" but this is clearly notable if you look at the cited references, which are sure to grow as more information is published. See Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts: "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources." Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:PERPETRATOR which states "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" - if this develops into an event with lasting notability, we can restore or recreate the article at that time. Triona (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking that way out of context. Let's continue with the very next sentence of that policy: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This is not routine reporting about announcements or sports. What WP:NEWS means is that we shouldn't include coverage of every VFW pancake breakfast and every little league team that wins a trophy. It does not mean we shouldn't have articles about events that are covered in depth by every major media outlet in the country (and possibly the world). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For fuller context, NOTNEWS also refers to the "enduring notability of persons events" [emphasis mine]. Just because news stations report events in the hope that they will capture the next Oklahoma City bombing or R. Budd Dwyer, that doesn't mean that breaking news reporting is always notable. Time will tell. Location (talk)
Keep What's the rush? There's no deadline. The encyclopedia is not harmed by the inclusion of this article, people are searching for this, and we can and should wait a few more days to assess the lasting notability of this event. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On-the-fence-delete First, could WP:N/CA be any less helpful of a guideline? My personal yardstick for these incidents is that if only the perp died, then it's not going to be notable—it will fade from the public memory in due time. Though the perp's history with Discovery makes for a more interesting story, I don't think that the story will get legs. See, I just naturally called "it" a "story", not an "event" or "shooting" or anything... --Livitup (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like Wikipedia isn't too sure about these events. 2010 Pentagon shooting went through an AFD a month ago with a "no consensus". Similar event (only the perpetrator died), same arguments (NOT#NEWS, ONEEVENT). Perhaps an RfC is needed to assess this further? hbdragon88 (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N/CA. A crime is confirmed to have occurred (obviously), and worldwide media coverage[1][2][3][4][5] confers notability. Are people really suggesting that the fact that the hostages were rescued makes it less notable? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Raoul Moat, Cho Seung-hui - they are similar situations and they redirect to the appropriate article, which both have stayed on Wikipedia. Superchrome (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough to me. Grue 07:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say we keep the article and ban the deletionist asshole who nominated this article for deletion. Xizer (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hourick likes this!--Hourick (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xizer, lets keep it civil please. Tiptoety ^talk 19:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Discovery Communications - in fact, there already is a paragraph there. It perfectly suffice. --Tone 08:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.180.223 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable plus it has something to say about social networking and the media. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 10:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm on the fence and I am only slightly leaning toward keep. I think WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but I think there is significance in the motivations of the attack and also in the social media aspect. Perhaps a better article would be on James Lee or as said above to merge this article with Discovery Channel.--v/r - T P 11:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2010 Pentagon shooting "had no lasting implication" (gunman killed before he could kill anyone) and yet it has a page. The 2010 Las Vegas Courthouse Shooting "had no lasting implications" (gunman killed before he could kill anyone) and it has a page. 99.231.201.11 (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Once again I'm forced to point out that "in the news" is not the same thing as "falling under NOTNEWS". Umbralcorax (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability guidelines. David Straub (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Tone above. Mention in Discovery page is good enough. The article itself does not add much to encyclopedia. -- Ashish -g55 13:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't bring myself to make a call either way, but I think this is another case highlighting the dire need to overhaul WP:NOTNEWS to be more explicit about what it's actually supposed to mean, since it keeps serving such a major role in AFD discussions with people using it to support opposing views. Is it intended to rule out "most newsworthy events", or is it intended to rule out "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities"? Seeing the same guideline applied over and over with such inconsistent outcomes is just tiresome. Propaniac (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not routine news, this is extraordinary news, and as such is worthy of being recorded in Wikipedia. Rob (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why is it that every goddamn time I check Wikipedia for a current event, some idiot has nominated the article for deletion? y'all need to deal with this, it makes you look like a bunch of clowns 76.66.102.140 (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WTF? Keepscases (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Heroeswithmetaphors. Additionally, does not meet the crieria that the submitter presented as criteria for deletion. Almafeta (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For Now, until then, keep mention on the Discovery Communications page, until more info is revealed. GD1223 (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Meets Notability criteria. 64.89.89.238 (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dpaanlka (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Meets Notability criteria.--74.132.52.23 (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I don't see the need to rush. Maybe discuss a merge later if the article fails to get to any normal size. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All over the news yesterday and numerous stories on it so I fail to see how it's WP:NOTNEWS.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as the Unitarian church shooting. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting. --DHeyward (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT. This knee-jerk "write about it NOW" mindset is getting irritating. Tarc (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lesser topics have been created and kept. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 22:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Discovery Channel article. Events were too noteworthy to ignore/delete.Hotdaddy (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is only "notable" because it happened at Discovery's headquarters. Had this happened at a carwash it would have been a single article in the local newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.163.130 (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing it didn't happen at a car wash, then. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Heroeswithmetaphors. WereWolf (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event dominated the American news media for an entire afternoon. I get the feeling that people around here nominate articles for deletion not for failing notability tests, but to make themselves feel important. Valadius (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discovery Communications. It doesn't seem to me as significant enough to have its own article at this time. We can always split it off again. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although no objection to reevaluating this in a few months (say, 6 months) to determine whether it had any lasting impact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The more you know about the politics and culture of the United States, the more obvious it becomes: this is not going to go away for a while. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event belongs to a family of crimes that are almost always notable in American culture (individual madman rails against large corporation, takes hostages in a suicide stand-off.) News sources are already ample; sociological sources are likely to follow within a month. Given the existence of reliable sources now, it is logical and appropriate to maintain an article to allow for more scholarly sources to develop. The article may always be considered for deletion in the unlikely event that it proves insignificant. (As an aside, the rule of thumb for these crimes is that scholarly interest - and hence, encyclopedic notability -- is a function of the fame of the corporation attacked. If a man attacks a local car lot, scholarly attention is unlikely. If a man attacks a national television channel because of a controversy over environmentalism, scholarly interest is virtually certain. Sociologists love events like these.) Xoloz (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and link to ecofascism. andycjp (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the notability may be subject to change, doesn't meet Delete criteria. Maverick (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm neutral on this. Suggest closing the AfD discussion for now and re-open it in a week to see if article is notable enough. This is just another overzealous AfD. --Œcolampadius (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is strongly related to pressing global issues including climate change, species extinction, human overpopulation, and environmental destruction resulting from excessive development. The article also relates to other instances in which radical environmentalists have used violence to gain direct access to media, e.g. the Unabomber. Such instances are likely to become more common as the impacts of climate change and loss of ecosystem services become more widespread. Most importantly the article relates to antihumanism and the agendas of existing antihuman organizations, e.g. Church of Euthanasia, VHEMT. Link to radical environmentalism, unabomber, church of euthanasia, daniel quinn. --victimofleisure 14:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discovery Communications. I know this AfD is headed for "keep," but I was surprised this had its own entry. It seems like the one really notable fact about this incident was that the company targeted is a major media entity, so I think the text should reside there. Mr. Darcy talk 14:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discovery Communications, unless we're changing the name at the top left of my page to Wikinews. This was a three-hour chunk of the news cycle, and that's it. Xoloz above says it will have 'scholarly interest' - well, considering any coverage has already devolved to "what a weirdo" and that's about it, I doubt it's going to be in any textbooks anytime soon. WP:NOTNEWS people. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discovery Communications per the above. Fails WP:EVENTS. Runs afoul of WP:BREAKING, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENT. Location (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As can be expected with any major news story, we come to Wikipedia to find some good coverage the organizes the news reports and puts them in context... topped by a deletion notice. No one who cites NOTNEWS to delete articles has ever read it. It's not about banning breaking international news, but wedding announcements and obituaries. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although that's certainly one interpretation, it does not take into account the full context of WP:NOTNEWS. As you know from reading it, NOTNEWS distinctly refers to considering the "enduring notability of persons events" and on this "...breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Then again, your crystal ball may be better than mine. Location (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not emphasized, but not disparaged either. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a distinct, separate article. The event is notable. It made the national news for at least two days. It should not be merged into Discovery Communications, as that article is about the company, not about every complaint made about it by random crackpots and terrorists. If merged, it would simply cause clutter.—Quicksilver^{T @} 20:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discovery Communications per the above.OneHappyHusky (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kafziel. Clearly notable due to volume of coverage. --Falcorian ^(talk)
delete Do not give hime the publicity he craved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.221.69 (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your only reason to vote delete? Superchrome (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable event, Start have labelled this a terrorist attack and is one of the first enviro crimes of this type. mark nutley (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discovery Communications per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT.--74.57.5.235 (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - as hostage crises go, this seems to be at least moderately notable (if mainly for the apparent motivations of the perpetrator). It's certainly more significant than the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis, and that's had an article for almost three years now. Robofish (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Revisit in 3-6 months to examine longterm notability 16:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep, relevant hostage crisis, relevant motive. Redwolf24 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hostage crisis that is notable. Agree with person two votes above me. Buggie111 (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. (Gabinho^>:) 08:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, This story made international news, with coverage in many news outlets. How much more noteworthy could it get? This AfD is ridiculous. -- noosph e re 14:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This story was barely a blip on the radar and has no lasting cultural significance. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The police kill the perpetuator. This is rare elsewhere in the world and hostage taking is too. This makes it worth noting. 07:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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.