Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Guidestones bombing


 * 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 to Georgia Guidestones. WP:SNOW closure - overwhelming support for merger and redirect with little opposition. Non-admin close. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Georgia Guidestones bombing

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Per WP:DELAY. There may well eventually be enough to support it's own article, but what is here now could be a single sentence in the main article. Fbifriday (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect — The points made by Fbifriday are valid. The Georgia Guidestones bombing is hardly notable as it stands and there isn't enough information to justify its existence in the main namespace. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete into Georgia Guidestones. There is only one sentence there right now, pointing to this article, and that article is already on the short side, so it won't be harmed by the extra material. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete Someone blew up a stone; not too notable. It could be mentioned in Georgia Guidestones, but an entire article? Nythar (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect unless/until the event becomes notable enough to warrant its own article. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Keep, at least for now, because we should probably wait at least a week for further developments. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect. If the section gets too large, it can be split from the other article. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Keep per comments at the bottom of the page. Possibly become notable for own article.CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hang onto it for now: I hope no one's tempted to delete and close this discussion early, give it at least a week to see what additional information develops.  – Athaenara  ✉  22:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect: my view changed after a couple of days of furthur consideration. – Athaenara  ✉  05:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Neutral Comment: WP:RAPID is massively at play here with the article in question being PROD just over an hour after creation, contested 5 minutes later, and AfD’ed 2 minutes following the contested PROD. I would like to ask that all the !votes be reconsidered in 24 hours, so tomorrow, I will ping every !vote within the first few hours of the AfD beginning to this message (Supports, Opposes, & merges) for a new look at the article after it would no longer be in a WP:RAPID timeframe. (Member of WP Current events who has not edited the article prior to this message.) Elijahandskip (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, PROD was contested because it was unlikely to succeed, in the same edit comment, I was advised to bring it to AfD, hence why I simply did that. I know current event AfDs are held for a few days, but please don't mischaracterize me as being in a rush. Fbifriday (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said anyone specifically rushed deletion on it. My message was more or less a generic "heads up" that WP:RAPID was at play and that all !votes should probably wait 24 hours. I would say none of the !votes would change from now, but just as WP:RAPID says "As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days...to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge." So waiting 24 hours should give time for a true clear picture of the event to emerge.  In my opinion, it will probably still not be notable enough for a stand-alone article, but I will wait and see before I would do any !votes. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect Keep a redirect here, I think it would be a valid search query, and that way if it ever becomes notable we can spin it back off into its own article. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is very little that can be said, even if they catch the alleged bomber, that can't be said on the monument's main page in one paragraph. The monument itself is barely notable enough to merit inclusion on Wikipedia, and only became prominent recently because of the NWO conspiracy theories circulated during the election (which I suspect will turn out to be the reason for the bombing). Quixilver391 (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Georgia Guidestones, a page that is a perfectly good repository for whatever we can say about the bombing, and selectively merge as appropriate. Not every event needs its own page, and scattering information across multiple articles does little more than make the material harder to maintain. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hang on for now but rename The title is a bit premature, we know it was an explosion, but the investigation has just begun. A better title would be Destruction of Georgia Guidestones since we now have an explosion and a backhoe (the latter did the most damage) that led to the complete leveling of the monument. Calling for a deletion of the article is also premature, we should give media some time and judge the importance of the subject in the following days and weeks.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก  23:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * News sources are calling it a bombing, as is the GBI. Unless they tell us later it wasn't a bombing, if it's kept, the name seems appropriate to me. Fbifriday (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment As nominator, I would like to say that the dynamics around this event are shifting, and it's appearing this may be a bit more serious, as they have actual video of people planting a bomb, and thus, now have a bomber on the run, meaning there is going to be a manhunt for the suspect. All of this is much more appropriate on the bombing page than it would be on the main page, so I am beginning to believe that the article may meet notability guidelines. I firmly stand by that this was a WP:DELAY type of article, and should have started as a section on the main article, however. Fbifriday (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep I predict this will grow, and I think technically it passes WP:GNG, so I think our debate should be about logic and common sense = is there enough to split the article? I think all votes here will be rapidly out of date in days, so I suggest we all wait a few days before rushing to delete. Seems like big news: https://www.wsj.com/articles/georgia-guidestones-damaged-explosion-11657131684 CT55555 (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy merge The main article is not that long and a separate page should not have been made in the first place. If you think there's potential, there's still no reason why it can't be split when more content is added – there's potential for more content at Georgia Guidestones too! How about we wait a few days before rushing to have a separate page? Reywas92Talk 02:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - This has the potential to be a notable, significant event, given the history and the controversies surrounding this monument. I say we sit on this for a couple of weeks before we consider deletion again. Love of Corey (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I just found out today on Facebook that a lot of people who were very hostile to the monument (they thought it was satanic, or advocating world government, or some such thing) are delighted it was destroyed. I suspect that some hostility to the article is stemming from that: they don't want too much attention paid to a terrorist act of which they approve. I would like to keep the articl for the time being, because if the vandal is located there might be a lot to learn about his affiliations. Ducdebrabant (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, but... Current reporting suggests that there are multiple possible motives for the bombing. If reporting keeps relating the events as tied to political or religious motives, there may be cause yet to keep the articles separate. However, if the article on the bombing does not appear to have any contextualization or extensive coverage outside that which should be present in the main Guidestones article, then it should be merged. This should be a conversation had in a month or so. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Georgia Guidestones. No deaths so far. Centralknights (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Georgia Guidestones. This does appear to be a bombing, but I still think it would fit better into its own section on the main page for the sake of keeping things organized. Every event doesn't need its own page. Rainier Blue (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete into Georgia Guidestones as others have suggested. There's no reason for a separate arucle, just add these details to the appropriate section in Georgia Guidestones. Truthanado (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per above suggestions. Too short to merit its own page as is. Shaded0 (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Georgia Guidestones as it's been suggested. I don't find a lot of the arguments for keeping it moving; if it's not relevant now, why should we wait for it to stay simply because it has the potential to be relevant? Even if there's more to it than it seems, which there likely is, I don't see why it couldn't be a subsection of the Georgia Guidestones page itself, especially since that base page is as short as it already, too: it'd be more useful in all cases to merge and redirect it. Nekomancer Jaidyn  ( talk ) [she/her] 05:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete Not notable enough to have its own page. All the information so far in this page can be summed up in a paragraph under its main page. Enjoyddos (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per the precedent set at Buddhas of Bamiyan. Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect Unless further information comes out, having a separate article for the event is trivial with the lack of information/detail. Freakmenn (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete Not notable enough to have its own page. All the information so far in this page can be summed up in a sentence (possibly paragraph) under its main page. DublDizl (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete Do we seriously need a separate article for every little news event? It's common with WP:RECENTISM to overly detail recent things. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect someone blew up a stone, that's not worthy of its own article. This article is just trying to hype that nothing event by calling it a bombing. No need for a separate article, would be fine to be explained in the relevant section of the main article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Considering the notoriety of the monument, linked theories of significance and the likely investigation that may follow and potentially even political aftermath (see Last Week Tonight of few months back), this may merit its own page. Potentially up for deletion at later stage. --  Otapka (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect I do not believe the stones are notable enough that their destruction requires another article. Most people probably weren't aware of them until Kandiss Taylor said something--dashiellx (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE "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." MarshallKe (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 12:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Georgia Guidestones. WP:TOOSOON to say whether this deserves its own article. It's unlikely that the bombing receives coverage independent of the guidestones. WP:DELAY applies here more than WP:RAPID as there's already clearly a space on Wikipedia for this information, the Georgia Guidestones article, and it can be later determined whether or not there should be a spinoff article as coverage develops. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect — SQB (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Georgia Guidestones. It's too soon to determine whether a separate article is needed for the destruction, and a standalone article should not be a stub. Hocus00 (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is no longer a stub CT55555 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for Now - While this page was created a little prematurely, I also feel like this will continue to grow as more details come to light. If it turns out it's not a significant story, and that point it can be deleted. But it'd seem counter-intuitive to delete a page if it is going to be created at a later date. 142.183.26.246 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't create articles before they meet guidelines, and wait for them to meet notability. The question here is whether or not it meets them as it is right now. Fbifriday (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Georgia Guidestones. A stand-alone article is not needed for the story of the bombing to be told well. All that needs to be said about it can be stated in the existing Guidestones article (WP:NOPAGE). Drdpw (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect - nothing really to merge, content at target on bombing is already pretty tight. ‡ El cid, el campeador  talk  19:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and Events. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Convenient to have the redirect to a section, but no need for it's own page. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2022 (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.