Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting

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 clear and obvious keep for now; there is no sense in a pileon at the time being. Please pay attention to the suggestions that this be revisited in a week or so to determine whether or not it should be merged into United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Shereth 22:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting[edit]

Wikipedia is not the news. People are, believe it or not, shot every day in the USA. I'm aware of the relevance of the location, but this really is a news story, and sadly, people won't be thinking of it as notable in a year's time. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.- Gilliam (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the shooter is notable by being involved in previous incidents against the federal government, as well the holocaust memorial museum is a notable place, also according to media reports white press secretary Robert Gibbs said President Barack Obama was "obviously saddened by what has happened.", a white house press release adds to the notability Thisglad (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has received significant international coverage by multiple reliable sources. So, notable. --Elliskev 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC
Redirect to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, single incident, no long-term significance. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop. If it becomes just news and the shooter disappears from notability, then merge it into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum article as it will be part of it's history. rkmlai (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this plan. Revisit this issue later. Joey the Mango (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Xtreambar (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the shooting took place at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and the motivations of the attacker make it noteworthy. Furthermore, if this article is deleted under the logic suggested by stifle, I request that the Assassination of George Tiller article be also deleted. After all, people are shot every day, right? KarshSM(talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- WP:NOTNEWS refers to "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." as things that should nto be covered here. This incident is far beyond routine, and as such, deserving of its own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this isn't just a shooting. There are significant undertones to this case. If it doesn't develop in some time, then perhaps it can be merged. Not now. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though it the news has only just broken, this is already a significant terrorist event. Giant Snowman 21:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - the increased attention this shooting has received makes it more notable than the average shooting incident. The article is worth keeping at least for the time being, as the story develops. If the event turns out to be only of passing importance, then WP:NOTNEWS would come into play and a merge may be appropriate, but we can't judge that just yet. Robofish (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. White supremacism and Anti-Semitism are notable phenomenon in the United States today - to our shame as a nation. An ideologically-motivated attack with intent to kill whether made on individuals or institutions is notable by definition..Historicist (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User:AlbertHerring sums up my rationale. It might be wise to merge the content into the museum's article, but not at this point. Also, I find it strange that the person who wouldn't protect the article at WP:RFPP is the same person who nominated it for deletion. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for something that gets massive news coverage, the day of the incident is not an appropriate time to decide notability. There's no harm in keeping the article around for a month or two until things cool down, then deciding when all the facts are in. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable.radek (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. ThreeE (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The museum does not deserve to be sullied by having space (beyond a link and a sentence) devoted to this incident. That would be unfair unbalancing of the page of an important museum.Historicist (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Historicist (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is is necessary to keep both this version and the (sister project) WikiNews version??? Couldn't they be merged at Wikinews??? Just asking. CaribDigita (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikinews provides a different sort of coverage than Wikipedia... Wikipedia will have one unified encyclopedia-style article on this incident, with broad coverage, where Wikinews will write several seperate news articles over time on specific developments. The question here is only whether an encyclopedia article is proper for this topic. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events." This is dramatic and will no doubt get a lot of short-term news cover, but that does not make it historically notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not be historic to you but for survivors of the Holocaust this is indeed a historic event. This event will change many things, and not just security details. If your not familiar with how difficult and scary it is for survivors to even go the museum you may not understand how much this is going to impact many people. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High profile right wing violence is part of a larger story that is historic making it encyclopedic. As well, this is the Holocaust Museum, it will impact many people, it goes beyond the normal shooting incident and has the flavor of a historic event. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And really an admin could snow-close this at some point if we continue on in this vein. Sorry but this isn't even close, and the notion that "shootings happen every day in the U.S." is a relevant fact for this situation is a bit bizarre. A semi-well known white supremacist/holocaust denier shot up the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. It's the absolute dominant news story of the day in the U.S., and will certainly be remembered for many years—at the least among Jewish folks, but many others as well I'm sure. There will be hundreds of editorials about tomorrow (WP:CRYSTAL, I know, but just watch) These insta-AfDs of obviously notable news events do get tiresome—particularly when there is no effort whatsoever to make an argument for deletion based on our actual notability standards ("people won't be thinking of it as notable in a year's time" is, of course, irrelevant since notability is not temporary). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we should snow-close this now. The tag on the page merely makes Wikipedia look like an absurdly argumentative place.Historicist (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the nom on their talk page to consider withdrawing this so we'll see what comes of that, but I'd also support a snow-close for the same reason you suggest, in addition to the obvious fact that there will be no consensus for deletion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To say it's not going to be historic is pretty silly. YOU CANNOT SEE INTO THE FUTURE! I say keep it around until history disproves it. Xmzx (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KarshSM's rationale (what sets this apart from other murders) and the other keep rationales. A redirect is possible if the story never grows beyond a few paragraphs but to delete this article now would make future efforts at incorporating it into the museum article much more difficult. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why does this need its own article? It's hard to argue that it doesn't need to be located on the main page of the museum. Pr0me7heu2 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The museum does not deserve to be sullied by having space (beyond a link and a sentence) devoted to this incident. That would be unfair unbalancing of the page of an important museum.Historicist (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If "Wikipedia is not the news" then why is there an "In the News" section on the homepage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.129.44 (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the second shooting at the Memorial in less than 30 years. How is that not notable? Evening Scribe (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2009 (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.