Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hostage crisis


 * 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. Editorial decisions about renaming and/or merging can take place on the article talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hostage crisis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

One of the poorest articles I have ever seen... looking pretty terminal. So i'm seeing what people think, perhaps we could merge it somewhere? Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The term is so frequently used here that an explanatory article is probably in order. I agree, a badly written article, although someone who cares can fix up the grammar.  Apparently, this exists in order to explain "hostage crisis" when people can't figure out the meaning from the context of an article.   It seems to be a Wikipedia convention to throw the words in on the title of any incident where people were taken hostage, e.g. Beslan school hostage crisis, 1991 Sacramento hostage crisis, etc.   Though it's an overworked media cliche, and somewhat redundant (is there anytime being taken hostage isn't a crisis?), I can't think of an alternative.  Mandsford (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (thinking out loud) There are two primary issues with this topic. The first is that there are terrorist and criminal situations and they are similar in some ways and quite different in others. That's solveable with editing. The other is that the term hostage crisis itself is a bit POV. Criminal terminology has migrated to standoff. As for terrorist acts, the governments don't like to use "crisis" because it implies panic/immobilization/etc. The hostage takers certainly see it in a different light. The media, however, LOVE to call anything a hostage crisis. Mechanically, there is little difference in tactics for either hostage-takers or hostage-rescuers/besiegers, but strategically, there is a huge difference when hostages are just part of another action versus the object of the action. I think I would for encyclopedic purposes support a merge into hostage or a new article on standoff that incorporates Siege. That would probably give terrorist hostage-taking short shrift, though. --Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have other demands on my time right now, but take a look at these, which I found a few hours ago:
 * Uncle G (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. How about merging with hostage? That article already has a section on hostage taking; it could easily be expanded to include this material. I'm not totally opposed to keeping this article, but I just wonder if it could be merged somewhere else. Terraxos (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as encyclopedic topic. Can be fixed. Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a widely-used term that can easily be expanded into a fine article. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep AFD is not for clean-up and it's not for merging discussions. No attempt has even been made to offer a valid deletion rationale. --JayHenry (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as encyclopedic topic. Can be fixed. Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a widely-used term that can easily be expanded into a fine article. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep AFD is not for clean-up and it's not for merging discussions. No attempt has even been made to offer a valid deletion rationale. --JayHenry (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2008 (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.