Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination of Jim Pouillon


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Assassination of Jim Pouillon

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

sad, but a failure of WP:NOT and a potential BLP nightmare. Ironholds (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with nom. Event just happened. Too early to determine notability. Location (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOT mostly concerns articles about people, not events. The relevant two sentences for events read "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article". This is clearly none of those things, this is a non-routine event being covered by the mainstream press: . Compare to Assassination of George Tiller, which is incredibly similar, just on the opposite side of the political coin. I don't see how we can have one article and not the other. Indeed, there are sources comparing the two. There's plenty of notability here... just because an event recently occurred doesn't mean we delete the article, there should be zillions of examples of that. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiller has 61 references over a wide date range with a HBO documentary. I don't give a fig about "political coins", so if you were implying any kind of bias it wasn't welcome. If I was to bring my political bias into this the article would have GOOD RIDDANCE in type 36 font. Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just created this article 15 minutes ago... and the event happened today, so I don't think asking for 61 references and an HBO documentary is an even vaguely realistic request. I pointed to evidence of dozens of news stories... if I stayed up all night making inline 61 references, which I'm sure I could do, should the article be kept? --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See "over a wide date range". We have no way of knowing if this will be notable at this point, and we don't keep things around simply because they might in the future. In WP:NOT, see "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events" and "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information". I find News articles a particularly good standard to set, i.e. has it been covered by secondary sources such as academia, documentaries, et al? Ironholds (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that a full 24 hours after it was created, the George Tiller article lacked any inline citations. If you claim you treat both the same regardless of politics... shouldn't people wait at least 24 hours before voting to delete this one? This article was nominated for deletion 6 minutes after I created it... no one waited for sources "over a wide date range" with the Tiller article. I agree that "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" and it's not being treated any differently here... I have shown several sources have provided non-trivial coverage of this event, and that's what WP:N and WP:V demand, breaking news or otherwise. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't around six minutes after the Tiller article was created. The article can be recreated at a later date when some long-lasting notability is evident, but we shouldn't keep an article until then because it might, in future, fulfil requirements. WP:GNG sets a base standard, yes, but WP:NOT takes precedence, otherwise we'd effectively be a news outlet. We have Wikinews for that sort of thing. Ironholds (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And like I said, WP:NOT only mentions articles based on routinely covered events like sports games. This shooting is not a routine, scheduled event that gets token coverage every day. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI: The George Tiller article was started three years before he died. The Jim Pouillon article was created less than 0:30 minutes ago simply to redirect here. This will likely be a notable event, but that's my WP:CRYSTALBALL. Location (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At any rate, the Tiller assassination article has never been challenged at AFD, regardless of creation timelines. Both are articles on the assassination of people involved in abortion/anti-abortion advocacy, both can be supported by numerous non-tabloid sources... the only real difference is the side of the political coin. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the only real difference is the lack of proven lasting notability and focus from outside of the newspapers and tabloids. Second warning, don't accuse me of political bias. Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Second warning? I didn't accuse you of anything... and I'm not even sure what you're threatening me with with these warnings. At any rate, it's utterly impossible for any event to have " proven lasting notability and focus from outside of the newspapers and tabloids" on the day it happened. There's no policy requiring us wait a day or a week or a year... Wikipedia has a long tradition of creating articles about events on the day they happened, or very soon after, when such sources cannot possibly exist. I think your claim runs contrary to practice as well as policy. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the real difference is that Tiller was notable within Wikipedia prior to his assassination. You are acting in WP:BADFAITH if you think political agendas are involved in the nom's or my recommendations.Location (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know either of you and I don't know your motivations at all, so I wouldn't presume to say you're politically motivated, I have no idea, and I simply haven't made any such accusations, you appear to be trying to read between the lines of what I'm saying. But still, nominating within 6 minutes of page creation... how good could the page possibly have been? And now I can't work on it because I have to defend the page here. Hopefully someone can realize the problem here... --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You've repeatedly made comments along the lines of "you didn't nominate the other article for deletion, and the only difference is political" - what exactly am I meant to think? Ironholds (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm asking you to explain a non-political difference between the two. And I'm saying that no one challenged the Tiller articles the way this article is being challenged, not that you specifically didn't. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, so you're making a comment about WP generally being biased, that's nicer :P. I've already explained a difference; Tiller demonstrates longer-lasting notability, with a documentary and coverage over a wide range of dates. Pouillon doesn't yet. The fact that he might in six months is by the by - we don't keep articles around because they might be important in the future. Ironholds (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But like I said, the sources, from many different non-tabloids, are here now. I think it's trying to predict the future to say "Well, even though there are 500 news stories today, no one will care in 6 months". If that's the case in 6 months, then deletion is called for, I agree. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because WP:NOT sets the base standard that "news" stories are not automatically notable, and the onus is on the creator to highlight (as I say once a year, or close enough) why this story is different from all other stories. Ironholds (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an impossible to define standard, and presumably that's why WP:NOT#NEWS says nothing of the sort... I could say it's "different from all other stories" because there are few to no other stories about anti-abortion activists being murdered for their beliefs/activism. I could say it's "different from all other stories" just because it's about the murder of a guy named Jim Pouillon, whereas no other story is about that. It's a completely subjective standard, so it's not a part of policy. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What I meant was "evidence that this news story is not the same as the story about a kitten rescued from a tree, which was also covered by four channels".Ironholds (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well uh, this is not the same as a story about a kitten being rescued from a tree, because it involves a double-murder, not firefighters and an oak tree. I'm not trying to be trite, it's just that the whole idea of what is similar and what is different is a hopelessly subjective standard to try to debate over. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, so all double murders are now worth an article? No. It isn't a subjective standard at all, what I'm saying is that what makes things like this "different" from other crimes is the long-term coverage. Pouillon has exhibited none of this, and we shouldn't keep him around because he might be covered in six months. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But there are endless articles we've kept around without waiting 6 months to see how much overall coverage there ends up being. I just don't see people applying this supposed standard very evenly... we keep articles on breaking news all the time without trying to delete them because there might not be coverage in 6 months. If there really isn't coverage of a major news story 6 months later, then it's time to consider deletion. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The arguments posited by the nom and myself have been non-political. On the other hand, you have introduced a need for both sides of the "political coin" to be represented from your first post. If we are in agreement that politics do not dictate whether the article is kept or not, then we should be looking at relevant policies and guidelines (i.e. WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTALBALL, etc.) instead of trying to ascertain where an hours old murder "fits in". Location (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC) [edited 02:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)]


 * Delete: Fails WP:NOT. This is not a notable event.  Even if this article is kept, the title would be wrong considering the shooter also killed another man the same day, a fact not even mentioned in the article.  Also comparing it to the George Tiller article does not work, George Tiller was created in June 2006 and by the time Assassination of George Tiller was created as an extension of the article it already had 29 inline citations, . George Tiller had notability way before he was murdered. Aspects (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is all true, but the article about his assassination is what I based this on, not the article on Tiller. Is there any place for mentioning this event in Wikipedia? I just can't understand how mentioning Tiller's murder is fine, but mentioning this murder isn't. Both seem like pretty big events in violence related to the abortion issue. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, let me put it like this. There is a section called Anti-abortion_violence for all instances of Anti-Abortion murders. If there are truly no politics involved, it seems like there should be a place in Wikipedia for Anti-Anti-Abortion murders (I'm sure there's a less convoluted term). So, where is that place? If the standalone article is no good, fine, just point me to the place where this actually can be mentioned on Wikipedia. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  —Aspects (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —Aspects (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteFails WP:NOTSimonm223 (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename. By the time this AfD ends, they're will be too large media frenzy for NOTNEWS.  He killed two people, so another name is needed, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "I think it'll be notable in a week" is not a valid keep vote. We look at things as they are now in relation to their historical importance, not as they might be in the future. Ironholds (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the killing of someone by non-state actors for their political belief (at least in a western democracy) is notable. With regards to the nomination text, if the nominator doesn't think the event is sad, can the nominator remove the "sad, but" bit, leaving just "a failure of WP:NOT and a potential BLP nightmare"? Andjam (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? I do think it's sad, as murders always are. I accept, however, that there are a lot of murders, and sad doesn't equal important. Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I was under the impression your personal reaction to the killing was "good riddance", but that your commitment to NPOV meant that you wouldn't type that in the article's page. Andjam (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a joke based on my political leanings - my sense of humour is rather dark and wry, so I appreciate it doesn't always count across. Regardless of political or personal belief or affiliation, deaths which deprive children of fathers, fathers of sons and wifes of husbands are always sad. Ironholds (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's been widely discussed. (CNNThe New York Times Slate Mother Jones The Guardian (UK paper) Daily Mail) However it should probably be renamed to something like Owosso, Michigan shootings or Owosso, Michigan killings as there was more than one victim and this would make it like others in Category:Spree shootings in the United States. (Also might reduce some of the political concerns/sniping. I also grant the "death toll" might be too low, but the Ohio highway sniper attacks apparently caused only one death)--T. Anthony (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources as you've currently given fall foul of WP:NOT. The fact that there are only immediate media reports to go on means we can't say that there will be long-term coverage or anything else to override "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Ironholds (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also feel that a multiple shooting in the town this size, with a political aspect possible, is notable. If this was simply a temporary local story it would not have garnered interest to so many political magazines or made it to British news sites. At the very least the shooting should be mentioned in the Owosso, Michigan article rather than deleted.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you haven't explained how this passes the gauntlet of WP:NOT; your entire argument for inclusion is "it must be important, it's been covered in the British news as well". Speaking as a Brit: 1), we always cover your news and 2) those British sources are trash tabloids like the Daily Mail and the Sun. Ironholds (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My idea was making it on the shooting entire. Once you do the explanations seems obvious. This is not a routine event and its coverage is in many sources. (Now including Malaysia) The political significance is also obvious as it's in many to most political magazines. Further developments have been noticed. I respect a stricter standard is wanted than in times past and maybe I've been here too long. From my memory this is clearly notable by all standards we've used since I've been here.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the statement made by Andjam. OckRaz (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As of now just a news story. There are murders every day. If it develops into a larger controversy, as it seems so, then an article could be justified. BTW the word "assassination" is way overused in our (USA) culture. Borock (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "assassination" is inappropriate (regardless of whether others are killed or not) unless and until evidence emerges that Pouillon was specifically, individually, targeted, beyond his membership in a group of protestors. Not every political murder is an assassination. Spark240 (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What term would you use? I haven't heard of the term "political murder". Andjam (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's pretty easy to understand what I mean, isn't it? Whereas "assassination" is inaccurate and misleading. Another demonstrator at the same time and place would have been shot equally dead, I expect. I don't think this event warrants its own article--see paragraph at Pro-life_movement--but simple, accurate terms would include "killing" and "murder." Spark240 (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. These murders are obviously going to have repercussions outside of the Owosso community. Ottre 12:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All murders have repercussions, and we as wikipedians are not in the position to decide what these are. Please give a keep reason that explains why this article passes the gauntlet of WP:NOT. Ironholds (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As it is now, this fails NOTNEWS. If this becomes historically significant, then we have a story. It's not reached that point yet. Lara  12:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia does not have an obligation to be current with the news. It seems that those who wish to make the abortion issue popular are trying to push their agenda into every media possible.  Which is completely understandable and Wikipedia does not need to comply if we dont think this is part of our mission.  I fear sock puppets on this one.  Paxuscalta (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that sock puppets have been !voting on this, or that they may !vote on this before it's over. Andjam (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not news, and the entry itself seems to claim that the killing isn't notable. Hairhorn (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete pouillon didnt have an article on him before the shooting, and is apparently only known locally. being shot and killed doesnt make you notable. its an interesting, almost "dog bites man" kind of news story, (not to trivialize the incident for people close to the events, to whom my heart goes out) but since the killing appears to not be politically motivated, its really just a murder. If Pouillon gains some notability after death, an article on him may be appropriate, but we cant predict this. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't even have an article on Jim Pouillon himself, so why do we need a separate one on his death? Why, in the U.S. alone, 18,000 people are murdered per year. Meaning no disrespect to those murdered and their families, this particular incident seems encyclopedically unremarkable. • Anakin (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I lean more toward the article being on the killings. A multiple murder in a town this size, particularly when their might be a political aspect to one killing, is of wider interest. Granted we're not consistent on that. We don't have articles on some notable shootings that size, but do have things like the Richland High School shooting--T. Anthony (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And now the US President has responded--T. Anthony (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I totally agree with Anakin. Is it an "assassination" if the victim wasn't notable in the first place?  Besides the adage that Wikipedia is not the news, the early reports indicate that the killer was a guy who had a grudge against his victims, and thought that the protester was irritating.  I'm imagining that WP:NOTNEWS was probably ignored when it came to that abortion doctor who was shot in the church, whose name I have forgotten if I ever knew it, but I wouldn't have voted to keep that one either. Mandsford (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, assumes far too much about the crime, and treats the other murder victim as a cipher. Disturbed man kills two people, stopped before reaching third target (a realtor with no apparent political activity). Al Lowenstein wasn't "assassinated," but murdered, and in the absence of further information that's what happened in this case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but probably rename after (many) more facts are in, in a week or so. A politically motivated murder of a person actively engaged in an act of peaceful street 'protest' (as that term is generally understood in US society), and murdered because of the specific nature of their protest, is notable and Wikipedia-worthy.  I leave for later whether assassination, or murder, or whatever is the correct term for the act, and what the article on the event should (in the end) be named. N2e (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT. Too many unknowns. We don't know if it was an assassination or just a normal act of murder, we don't know if it will have any enduring historical significance, etc, etc. Wait til the media frenzy passes, and then we can take stock on whether it has any lasting notability. Ray  Talk 21:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The likelihood of this being of lasting notability is quite high Not News does not mean that if if is in the news it is intrinsically not notable.    DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I sympathize with the content but the title alone shows that this is inappropriate. If the trial gets a lot of publicity and some other aspects, then sure - but I would expect the name to be under the trial. So far, this is hovering between a biography and a page on a trial. It is a page that doesn't even know its own identity, and this individual is definitely not notable enough to deserve a BLP, so, it would have to be a page on the trial. Wait until it happens and then a page came come up. Otherwise, Crystal would apply in addition to above arguments. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep wikipedia has an article about the abortionist in Kansas RIP getting shot I see no reason why this should not stay as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okmur (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with N2e. A politically motivated murder like this one is notable. Mkaksone (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Spree killing are usually sufficiently notable for their own articles.  The fact that one victim was an anti-abortion campaigner and that the story has received wide coverage make it notable.  The title should be changed though.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Let's start with the point made by the last commenting editor: the title is wrong.  Jim Pouillon wasn't "assassinated", he was "killed" (his death was random; that's not an assassination). So the article arguably should be called Killing of Jim Pouillin.  Or simply Jim Pouillin (to give it the maximum chance of finding any evidence of notability).  And at that point, it becomes a lot clearer that this article is non-notable, in the same way that the death in Iraq of a particular, local soldier might be covered by (say) the Washington Post, the Washington Times, Alexandria Times, the Alexandria Packet-Gazette: someone died, we make a record of that, and we move on.  If Jim Pouillon had been killed in a car accident, and several commentators noted that, would anyone feel he merited an article?  In short:  this is a classic "known for a single event" case (WP:1E), and he's not notable otherwise.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 18:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At the risk of falling foul of WP:OTHERSTUFF, do you think Wikipedia should have the articles Murder of James Byrd, Jr. and Matthew Shepard? Andjam (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. Regarding the first, here's what I see as the critical text from the article:
 * "Some advocacy groups, such as the NAACP National Voter Fund, made an issue of this case during George W. Bush's presidential campaign in 2000. They accused Bush of implicit racism since, as governor of Texas, he opposed special hate crime legislation. Also, citing a prior commitment, Bush declined to appear at Byrd's funeral. Because two of the three murderers were sentenced to death and the third to life in prison (all charged with and convicted of capital murder, the highest felony level in Texas), Governor Bush maintained that 'we don't need tougher laws'. However, after Governor Rick Perry inherited the balance of Bush's unexpired term, the 77th Texas Legislature passed the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act on May 11, 2001."
 * Regarding the second, from that article: In late 2004, ABC's Elizabeth Vargas reported on an investigation into the murder for the television program 20/20. And there is a proposed federal law, the Matthew Shepard Act, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008, and which (the article about the bill says) President Obama supports.
 * I hope you can see the differences here. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 15:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Event just happened. Give article a chance. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rewrite & rename.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If this is deleted, articles like Assassination of George Tiller (it is more notable, but there's also the George Tiller article), Barnett Slepian and David_Gunn_(doctor) should also be removed.
 * 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.