Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Obama assassination plot in Hawaii

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 merge and redirect to Barack Obama assassination threats#Hawaii threats against Michelle Obama. –xeno^talk 16:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Obama assassination plot in Hawaii

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

One lonely, possibly deranged ("although her mission is to assassinate the president she has no desire to hurt him" -wtf?) woman says something about "blow away", it's covered in the news and we call it a "plot"? I don't think this is notable, even if there are 5 webpages reporting it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work. --MisterWiki talk contribs 04:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barack Obama. Not relevant to have it's own page. - Human historian (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, however it needs a little patching up. Alex (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the keep-voters: are we Entertainment Tonight? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we are Saturday Night Live. :) TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable, like the 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver and 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee. These article were declared notable before and Obama was merely a candidate then, not President. The article does need some improvement in writing but that doesn't mean delete. The Barack Obama article is already too long. JB50000 (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Don't you need more than one person for it to be a plot? Northwestgnome (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE, the shortcutless section above PERSISTENCE on depth of coverage...we don't need an article for every slow news day two paragraph writeup from (the online equivalent of) page C23. — æk ^Talk 07:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Barack Obama assassination threats, per below comments. — æk ^Talk 05:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not even sure this warrants a passing mention somewhere in the Obama article, but at the moment I'm leaning towards no, not even. This is a news item. We're an encyclopedia. End. JBsupreme (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a passing news item, with no long-term significance. Every other issue in this article could be fixed with 30 minutes worth of editing, but not the notability problem. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps there needs to be an article (List of) Barack Obama assassination attempts? NtheP (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Probably is unaware of attempts to create an article (blanked out by some) at Obama assassination scares[reply]

I was just about to post that, but I saw you thought up of it already. I agree completely, and may start the article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an attempt. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:PERSISTENCE. This was a flash in the pan news story that had no lasting significance. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially a story about a woman picking up a telephone and making threats, not much of a plot. I think that this and the other two quasi-notable threats should probably be consolidated into one article about arrests made in connection with threats against the President and his family. Mandsford (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above seems to be wanting Merge, not delete. The assassin also travelled from Boston to Hawaii, not a short distance.JB50000 (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No "plot" to speak of. WP:NOT#NEWS issues. Warrah (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is notable. If we had an article on every guy who thought of assassinating George W. Bush, we could simply double the number of articles in enwiki. I fear there will be times when also the Obamas will be more endangered. --PaterMcFly talk ^contribs 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "An article on every guy who thought of assassinating George W. Bush"? You've missed the point: it's not about the existence of a plot, it's about the attention it received. Nothing is notable if no one cares about it, and anything is notable if enough people care about it. Everyking (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, press coverage demonstrates notability. The article needs work, but that's not a matter to be addressed within the scope of this AfD. Everyking (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... Please read WP:PERSISTENCE... for events like this we need more than just press coverage... we need to examine the duration of coverage. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Separate the AFDS. Keep Denver and Colorado. No comment yet on Hawaii - I've not read the Hawaii one yet, and I don't have time to look into it yet because I'm about to go off for a few days for the holidays. I'll check it out when I get back and vote accordingly. However, I am the primary author of the Denver and Colorado ones, and I take exception to the fact that they have been lumped in with the Hawaii article. Both of those are well-written and well-sourced with sufficient secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which satisfies the general notability guidelines. However, because they've been lumped together with an article that may not yet satisfy those guidelines, they are going to be getting delete votes that, in all likelihood, should only apply to the Hawaii article. Furthermore, both the Denver and Colorado articles have already been thoroughly vetted, and 'both are good articles (see Talk:2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver/GA1 and Talk:2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee/GA1). In fact, the Denver one is under consideration for featured article, and has already been the subject of a pointy deletion attempt, for which the result was keep. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but lumping these three articles together is simply unfair... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did that mean "Denver and Tennessee?" — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumping the article is very fair because they are the same subject matter. The Hawaii article is so new so it hasn't had the chance to be improved but deletion criteria is suppose to ignore the quality of writing. All 3 are equally notable and should be all deleted or kept (I favor keep). As far as "good article" vetting, good article criteria do not include notability so if an article is well written (which the TN and Denver article are), they still could be not notable. Besides, AFD criteria do not exempt good or featured articles. Also note that anybody can declare an article to be a good article just by saying so (If someone nominated Incahuasi District article for good article, you or I could approve it instantly. This is not pointy but allowing fair treatment of all 3 articles. Otherwise, the bias against newly created articles that need additional work is unfairly too strong. In short, I favor KEEP of all 3 articles and favor equal treatment whatever it is (delete or keep) of similar articles.JB50000 (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never nominated these. Don't know who slipped them in here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Michelle Obama; the woman wanted to kill the First Lady not President. Compared with the 2008 threats to Candidate Obama, this threat to the First Lady seems pretty marginal. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator argument amounts basically to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and so make many of the delete !votes (cfr.Mandsford) or rely on the misnaming as "plot", a problem that can be solved by moving/editing, per deletion policy. WP:PERSISTENCE reminds correctly that assessing if an incident will be notable or not cannot be determined reliably just after the incident happened, therefore to be safe for now we must assume that the thing will be notable (it surely has been covered by lots of sources), unless evidence will come out of the opposite. --Cyclopia^talk 00:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. We also have WP:NOTNEWS. So which one takes precedent? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTNEWS does not apply much here: For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. -This doesn't seem at all "routine news". --Cyclopia^talk 11:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And that is most likely where we might disagree -- which is fine with me. We can disagree on the scope of WP:NOTNEWS, but I don't think I nominated this based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. After all, when you take out the section "Not the first time," the generic picture of the Obama-family, and the navbox, then the whole article, as it stands, comes close to a mere linkfarm. The way I see it (and again, we can disagree) the whole tone of the article tries to elevate the notability by trying to prove the event's being on the same scale as the other two. Quite frankly, the fact that the author "pointedly" nominated the other two articles for deletion reeks much more of WP:HELL-I-WROTE-IT-SO-DONT-NUKE-OR-ELSE than my move to question the notability. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      
      By the way, author now created Obama assassination scares by copying the exact content of the two articles and adding his Hawaii-bit. More WP:POINT. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

< NOTNEWS clearly doesn't apply here. Almost any assassination plot or planned terrorist attack is "just news" – the death of JFK could also qualify as that. The article appears to satisfy multiple events notability criteria, specifically Depth of coverage, Geographical scope and Duration of coverage. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 13:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see... I could maybe be convinced of that if the people who want to keep it could actually make it an article... and I don't think the comparison w/ JFK quite nails it here... All of the sources are what would amount to a small snippet in a newspaper (not frontpage) and are all of Dec22+23, mostly copies or rewordings of one ap-source. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - 1)I cannot read your mind, but your rationale sounds a lot like mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT:I don't think this is notable, even if there are 5 webpages reporting it. is for sure not a nomination grounded in policy or guidelines. Which is fine, but at least let's be honest.
      - 2)After all, [...] comes close to a mere linkfarm. [...] the whole tone of the article tries [...] - This means that the article has to be expanded and edited, not deleted. The fact it is a stub and that tone is not appropriate now doesn't mean it has to be deleted -this is very clear in our deletion policy: if the problems with the article can be solved by editing, they are irrelevant for deletion.
      - 3)Quite frankly, the fact that the author [...] What the author thinks or does has nothing to do with the relevance of the article itself. If the author behaviour is problematic, report it in the appropriate places (WP:AN/I, etc.) but the author behaviour being questionable has nothing to do with the article's appropriateness. Moreover, I have not seen the Obama assassination scares article, but it seems an honest merge attempt from your description -quite the contrary of a WP:POINT, it seems a reasonable action to compromise.
      - 4)if the people who want to keep it could actually make it an article - Read WP:CHANCE. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-argued, yet I still disagree, and that's fine as well. We'll see what happens. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Original author could spend his time improving or rescuing the article, rather than wasting it on pointy stuff like this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per JB50000: while the article needs a massive overhaul for tone and style, its subject appears to be inherently notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 13:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the Michelle Obama article as the threat was made against her. Also, the sources cited in the article descibe it as a "threat" and not a "plot". Shinerunner (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Threats" such as these to the President and/or First Family are commonplace and non-notable. The Secret Service deals with hundreds per year - some get minor press attention, most do not. This one seems to have been slightly newsworthy (slow news day?), but it's not encyclopedia-worthy. Peacock (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References, please? Getting arrested for trying to kill the First Family is not common. Knowing where they are staying and travelling across the ocean is definitely rare. JB50000 (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think NOTNEWS actually does apply here. If, in the course of time, this incident becomes notable - for example, if discussion of it is sustained longer than a few days' media coverage, it could be included. Liklihood is that it will be of very short-term interest. At the moment, it is simply not notable in its own right. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any evidence of a "plot"; just an inane threat in a slow news cycle. This is cursory drivel that doesn't warrant Wikipedia's coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a plot. If editors think it is notable enough to stay in WP at all, it should be a sentence in the Barak Obama article (I bet the editing consensus over there would be to remove it). Not notable enough for an article; this is just one of those random things that gets a little bit of coverage for a couple of days and then disappears. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a poor criteria? There is no sentence in the Barack Obama article about the 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver and the 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee. If there are valid reasons for delete, meeting this criteria isn't one of them. JB50000 (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The world is a big place and there will always be a deranged person who thinks about making something of themselves by assaulting a prominent figure – it ain't notable. If someone publishes a notable analysis of several such events (showing their significance), we can have an article on the analysis. Until then, we should delete these articles which are an embarrassment for an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. There isn't enough information for an article. If there were a good merge target, fine, otherwise this could be summarized with a single sentence in the Obama biography. Something like, "Obama has been the subject of several assassination threats." Will Beback talk 04:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have been taking out text. JB50000 (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE both apply here for sure. As the latter states, "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." This subject is, at least at this point, exactly that sort of incident. Sorry, TreasuryTag, but the comparison with the JFK assassination is ludicrous. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not notable. When notability is established, then it can be recreated. The article doesn't even state the facts necessary to obtain relevancy. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is not the news.Adam in MO Talk 12:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reason is actually a Keep reason. People who want delete say this is news but Adam in MO says it's not news! JB50000 (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, to be honest I think that "this" refers to Wikipedia, not the article. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with User:Cyclopia, I think Adam in MO was referring to "[Wikipedia] is not the news" as Wikipedia isn't ABC, NBC, Fox News or CNN. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been clearer this is not the news.--Adam in MO Talk 04:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new "Barack Obama assassination threats" page. I've started a tentative page in my userspace that includes the Denver and Tennessee plots (brief synopses with links to the main pages) as well as the Hawaii and other threats. I've reached out to JB50000 on this, and I'm hoping this will end some of the messiness that's been going on lately surrounding the Denver/Tennessee/Hawaii articles (multiple AFDs, non-consensus merge attempts, etc). Any input on this proposed compromise would be appreciated! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What you are suggesting is what I had in mind when I proposed such an article earlier. A general article on all attempts with those that are notable enough broken out into their own mainspace as per Denver/Tennessee (assumption that others think they are notable by themselves. I haven't read them). NtheP (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I think JB50000 was advocating for something along those same lines. It seemed to me there was a growing consensus for such a page. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 19:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new "Barack Obama assassination threats" page. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator for this AfD: Absolutely no objection. My main point for this AfD was (and still is) that the incident does not warrant a separate article per WP:N. I invite everyone to look at the proposed article in Hunter's userspace -- it's great and sums up the topic nicely. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a withdrawn nom or a merge !vote? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is still delete and move Hunter's creation into main space... if you wanna call that a merge, go ahead, it's all the same to me. :) ...or what would be the difference? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MERGE means keeping the page as a redirect (for copyright purposes), and moving the info to a new article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I endorse the merge, and kudos to Hunter Kahn. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh -- yeah, I suppose a redirect makes sense. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've gone ahead and moved Barack Obama assassination threats out of my userspace. I'll go ahead and also cast my vote that this Hawaii plot page be Redirected to the new page. Thanks all! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the new article, it looks great. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:51, 30 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.