Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee

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 speedy close. One of these articles is already having an AfD, thus it is inappropriate to raise another. This seems to be an attempt to make a WP:POINT. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee and related articles

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

These 3 articles are about assasination plots and scares of the Obamas. I see that there is growing support for deletion of the Hawaii article, therefore I will agree with the possible consensus and call for equal treatment of all 3 articles, which would be delete. They are all minor plots where no shots were fired so I can kind of see why some want deletion. All involved the alleged assasin travelling, but in the Hawaii case, the person travelled all the was from Boston. This is not a pointy request but an attempt for uniformity in Wikipedia. Hopefully, someone will help lengthen the Hawaii article to change opinions about retention/deletion.

The Tennessee and Denver articles are very long but the police admit that these were just early failures, early cases that don't even resemble a real assassination or attempts (like JFK or that guy in the Republic of Georgia) but just some evil clowns with stupid ideas (which is still punishable by jail so don't copy them. Standard TV warning: Kids, don't do this at home)

Maybe some may support merging all 3 articles together. JB50000 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Denver/Tenneesse. Defer Hawaii debate to that AFD. I am the primary author of the Denver and Tennessee articles; I've played no part in the Hawaii one. I think JB500000 means well here, but this isn't the answer. First of all, there is already an AFD for the Hawaii article ongoing, even as we speak. It's downright nonsensical to start another AFD for it in the meantime. Secondly, it seems as if JB50k is advocating a merge of these articles into one Obama assassination article. Such a discussion should happen on talk pages, not AFD. I think there is some merit to the idea of a Barack Obama assassination plots article, or something of the same name. There have been numerous other assassination scares regarding President Obama (see here for a few). However, even if an article like that were to be made, deleting the Denver and Tennessee articles would not be the right answer. Contrary to what JB50k said, those two plots were more serious and more advanced than the Hawaii one, or any of those others that have popped up along the way, like this or this. The Denver/Tennessee plots should of course be included in a round-up page about all the Obama threats, but the fact is that the Denver/Tennessee plots received far more coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which of course is a big part of the general notability guidelines. The Denver/Tennessee articles could be summarized on an overall threats page, with a link to the main articles. To simply merge them into the Obama threats article would outweigh everything else, and raise problems as far as WP:TOOLONG. And, finally, as I've already stated, the Denver and Tennessee articles satisfy WP:Notability, and so a deletion or merge is not appropriate. Furthermore, both are well-written, well-sourced articles, for which their notability has already been thoroughly discussed and vetted. Both are good articles (see Talk:2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver/GA1 and Talk:2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee/GA1). The Denver article has already survived a deletion attempt within this last month, which makes its nomination particularly inappropriate. And the Denver article is a featured article candidate, although I'm saddened to suspect its FAC is going to get derailed by these constant, unfair deletion attempts. Sorry for the long-winded nature of this post, but the Denver/Tennessee should not be deleted... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: JB500000, I also disagree with your claims that there should be "uniformity" among these three articles. If the consensus (which is still not determined) dictates the Hawaii article should be deleted, that in no way indicates the other two should be as well, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. They should be treated as individual articles, not lumped together... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close - The notability of each of these events is separate from the notability of the other ones, so I don't think they should have been nominated together. Regardless, the Denver article should not have been nominated for deletion again so soon, as it was already speedy kept this month. Since the Hawaii article is already in the middle of an AfD, it doesn't make sense to me to be discussing it in two places. Furthermore, there aren't AfD tags on the Tennessee and Denver articles, and the tag on the Hawaii article leads to the other discussion, so this AfD is malformed. For all those reasons, I think this discussion should be speedy closed. Calathan (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close & Admonish/Warn nominator Completely frivolous off-the-charts nomination: nominator pissed off that "his" article got nominated for being a badly written stub, and already tried to disrupt it by fiddling with it and changing my conttributions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this been nominated for deletion?—nothing wrong with it at all, seems a bit POINTy. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 13:44, 26 December 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.