Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001 White House 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 Delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

2001 White House shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was a minor shooting with no fatalities or serious injuries and the suspect was quickly apprehended, served only three years in prison without a major trial, and has not been heard from since his release. I removed this template from the article because there was no evidence that this was actually an assassination attempt on then President George W. Bush. This incident does not meet our WP:EVENTS criteria since it did not receive persistent, long-term coverage or caused any lasting effects or reforms to White House security, gun control, etc. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 24.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 22:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:EVENT does seem to leave a little room to argue for this article based on coverage, but in the end I am inclined to agree with the nom. The subject just doesn't seem to have had any long term impact and there is not any evidence this was an assassination attempt. Only the fact that the incident occurred in the vicinity of the White House seems to account for the short term, though significant, news coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Go  Phightins  !  18:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, no lasting significance or ongoing coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing significant resulted from this shooting. No one was killed or even seriously injured, no laws were passed, no improvement in security were made, no statements were released by top level officials, ect. The entire event was a run-of-the-mill arrest for illegal discharge of a firearm somewhat complicated by the non-fatal shooting of the subject, which got a day or two of media coverage because it occurred near the White House. This is a pretty classic case of not news. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I find SoE's WP:NOTNEWS argument above to be compelling. Carrite (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Eagle. Nothing to see here, move on folks. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Keep per Anarchangel's better argument. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Proposed summary of the LA Times article: "The incident came at a time when officials were considering the reopening of Pennsylvania Avenue north of the White House.-Man fires gun, LA Times- The initial closure had been in 1995, after the Oklahoma City bombing, and was made permanent after the World Trade Center bombing." Obviously the general public and in particular newspapers thought it was a big deal. No one should really have glossed over that, and the Delete votes are wrong on the strength of the newspaper coverage alone. But additionally, legislators had to consider the incident's ramifications in terms of security. This directly addresses SoE's claim of lack of significance, and in particular, the statement, "no improvements in security were made". It therefore affects both Carrite and Bearian's votes also. Anarchangel (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article simply states that "[the shooting] came at the same time officials are studying plans to reopen Pennsylvania Avenue north of the White House". Nowhere in this article nor in any other sources released during the two days of news coverage does it actually state that the shooting had an impact on the plans, only that they both occurred concurrently. Perhaps a merge somewhere would be justified, but this does not deserve its own article. Also, of course the media made a big deal out of this. They always do that when someone does something illegal near the White House. This doesn't mean that every illegal event near the White House deserves an article though. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Most of such shooting incidents get a lot of attention just after they happened, then perhaps a mention a few months later, and then it peters out. No evidence of any lasting encyclopedic notability. --Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced and neutral coverage of an event that was overshadowed by larger events later that year. This type of criminal activity adjacent to the White House is rare and should be documented.--MONGO 19:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Anarchangel & Mongo, It is somewhat minor but as noted above It is rare and we should document rare things IMHO. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Wikipedia is not a newspaper and as a minor event of no lasting historical significance. Arrests for illegal weapon discharges are arguably run-of-the-mill in the US. Philg88 ♦talk 16:42, 13 June 2014 (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.