Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Pentagon 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 no consensus. A merge per Fences&Windows may also be appropriate but that is an editing decision. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Pentagon shooting

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

Fails WP:ONEEVENT. Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 07:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; that's a misapplication of WP:ONEEVENT because the article is about the event, not the person. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 07:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of the article is about the perpatratorand the event itself is not of much consequence. (See talk page discussions).--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 08:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, it was at the Pentagon but people get shot all the time in the National Capital Region. It was big news at the time but did not have a lasting impact. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. No indication or assertion of lasting notability of the event. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Tisane here. WP:ONEEVENT is not applicable as the article is about the event. And regardless of the WP:OR provided by NortyNort it's not about people getting shot all the time in the National Capital area, it's about a shooting at the Pentagon. This doesn't happen "all the time."--Feddx (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still had no lasting impact and less of an impact or notability than most of the similar actions/people in List of incidents of political violence in Washington, D.C. with articles. I think an expanded subsection in The Pentagon may suffice.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious mis-application of WP:ONEEVENT/WP:BIO1E (Which stipulates that a person's article should not be created if they are notable for only one incident, not that both articles are unnecessary). Furthermore, this passes the WP:NOTNEWS description of "indiscriminate information" and routine announcements (something such as "Severe storm knocks out power to 100,000" might be true but not encyclopedia-worthy"). As an event, this also easily passes WP:EVENT and WP:GNG because of significant coverage and analysis (Also note that WP:NTEMP states "it does not need to have ongoing coverage.") This is a well-written article and there is no reason for deletion. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fiftytwo thirty. Well-cited article, about a not yet forgotten incident. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EFFECT and Tarc. While a shooting at the Pentagon is certainly unusual, this shooting had no lasting effect beyond the immediate sticker shock of "Shooting at the Pentagon." While the article is well sourced, most of the sources detailing the shooting are from that day or the few days following. There was no long lasting impact, no expansive security initiative that followed it, no analysis to speak of. The only thing that happened was on March 5, everyone reported the shooting, on March 6, everyone talked about the man who did the shooting, on March 7, no one could find any more to the story other than a psycho attempted to murder Pentagon policemen. Tragic and shocking? Absolutely. Notable beyond a few news cycles? Probably not. AP1787 (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. The notability of these sorts of incidents is difficult to evaluate. This incident has nothing particularly noteworthy to say other than "a mentally unstable man with a grudge against the government went out with a bang." Compared to the guy who flew a small plane into the IRS building in Texas, this case has not held the interest of the media or the public, as evidenced by the (lack of) lasting treatment by secondary sources and by Wikipedia page views. The 2010 Austin plane crash article gets gets over 280 page views a day, but this article only gets 37 page views a day. Abductive (reasoning) 03:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apologies to the creator of the article but thank God this is a unique event of a sicko with no repitition. I suggest moving this to the wikinews so that it can be recycled if something like this happens again. --Luckymelon (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sicko"? Please! Give Bedell his due. He was an anti-government freedom fighter with a sound anarcho-capitalist ethical foundation for using retaliatory force against the State. But, anyone challenging the state apparently has a mental illness, according to mainstream society. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 05:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would shooting a couple of wage-slave security guards help fight the State? Abductive (reasoning) 06:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your discussions limited to whether the article merits deletion or not.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 08:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tisane, advocacy of violence is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Please strike your statement. This is not a soapbox for radical libertarianism. Fences&Windows 13:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that if someone said, "The officers killed him in justifiable self-defense," no one would ask that editor to strike his statement, even though it is putting the officers' violence in a positive light. To denounce Bedell's actions, or to describe them as justifiable, is merely a political statement; political theory is, after all, that subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. The anti-libertarian political theory was briefly presented, and I briefly presented the libertarian counter-argument. That should more than suffice, really; come to think of it, it would have been better to have avoided judging Bedell one way or the other in this forum, since that's not what we're here for. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tisane, you really need to check yourself. With all due respect, I don't understand this kamikazee complex, nor is POV advocacy of terrorism in any way acceptable on Wikipedia. Tisane: "My Story." Carrite (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least find somewhere to merge such as The Pentagon#Shooting, which the nominator failed to even consider per WP:BEFORE (and citing WP:ONEEVENT is a joke, at least read what our policies and guidelines say before citing them). Someone launching an attack on the Pentagon is not a routine event, and Wikipedia does normally have articles on such attacks on government targets: 2010 Las Vegas courthouse shooting, 2010 West Memphis police shootings, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting, 2010 Austin plane crash, Hutaree, all of which are often mentioned in the same breath as the Pentagon shooting; I'm arguing precedent, not WP:OTHER. The coverage in this case was international, in-depth (involving analysis of the event and comparison to other attacks), and not just one turn of the news cycle. The incident is discussed in the media as one of several recent attacks on the US federal government;[1][2][3][4][5] perhaps it is worth having a article specifically about Attacks on the United States federal government? (we do have Militia movement and Patriot movement). Fences&Windows 13:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that spirit I have nominated the 2010 Albuquerque, New Mexico office shooting page for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 20:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:POINT and WP:Other stuff exists.Biophys (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, F&W's comment reminded me of that article, that's all. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a significant coverage by the press to justify notability (not so for 2010 Albuquerque, New Mexico office shooting).Biophys (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. it seems the article have a good references and the accident is important and notable. in this manner my opinion is keeping it.--Behtis (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the dickweed killer blew up a Taco Bell, it would be a one event situation, but since he shot up the Pentagon it became a matter of national consciousness and thus a historical event worthy of WP coverage. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per well-articulated remarks of Fiftytwo thirty & Fences and Windows. Cgingold (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EFFECT. May deserve a footnote in a relevant Pentagon article, but no more.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2010 (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.