Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alta View Hospital hostage incident


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  12:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Alta View Hospital hostage incident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This article lacks notability and would qualify for WP:SPEEDY deletion under category A7.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 8.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 10:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  12:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and tag for improvement. The incident certainly go major news coverage:,  in-depth and across the country:  , .  Moreover , there was a TV film:  Looks notable to me.  Keep as per  WP:CRIME.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - this event got plenty of attention. and passes WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The news coverage seems pretty sparse and contemporaneous to the event. Not every crime that has ever occurred and ever been reported on needs its own page in an encyclopedia. I don't know what WP:CRIME has to do with anything, as that is about individuals, not events. "Looks notable to me" and "event got plenty of attention" are even more worthless as justfications for keeping (one day in my dreams people who regularly do that will be banned from AfD discussions). More pertinent is WP:EVENTCRITERIA and the following subsections of WP:NOTABILITY. Lasting effects? Depth and duration of coverage etc? Hardly. The existence of the TV movie about the event might help, but it's clutching at straws, surely.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are creating a strawman... You basically say, the article is within the criterias. But so are other articles as well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply. Everything you point out, points towards notability, but still you say it is not enough. Just weird in my opinion. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, no, I'm saying it's not within the criteria, which are based on "whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting" etc etc. I have no idea where strawman arguments or otherstuff come into anything I said.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I find it very easy to imagine this being a case study in courses on psychology and women's health e.g. as a case study of a husband's violent response to his wife's reproductive choices, so a Wikipedia article on it sounds like a good idea. Few more citations wouldn't hurt, though. Blythwood (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The TV film is  certainly  enough. (even without it, the motive for the killing was enough to get national attention) .  DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Google gives me some post-2000 references that are outside the normal news cycle for the event, plus having sufficient notoriety to form the basis of a TV movie also falls under the category of ongoing coverage or a demonstrated cultural impact. Also, SPEEDY A7 (the nominator's deletion justification) does not apply: A7 explicitly relates only to a "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event" – this was an event/occurrence, not an organised event. (The article needs a tone clean-up to make it more encyclopedic) Aspirex (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2016 (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.