Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd R. Woodson


 * 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. Consensus seems to be that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. NW ( Talk ) 02:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd R. Woodson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

All he was arrested for was a multiple weapons charge and a few other things. All he is known for is one event. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The issue of notability was discussed briefly on the articles talk page. The article is becoming rather lengthy from prominent sources which would not be possible were it not of some notability. I say this on the assumption that notability was your rational for recommending it for deletion. And, those weapons that he was charged with possessing are for more than hnting or holding up a 7-11. Supertouch (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are others out there who are likely arrested daily for these types of things. He really isn't all that different from other people who have a massive gun collection and are arrested. A few years ago, a guy nearby my house was arrested with an arsenal, and he wasn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did he have the breadth of RS coverage that we are seeing here -- already, every major RS in the US, and now those outside the US are picking it up as well?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I wasn't focused on looking for external links on what I already knew though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you to an extent, that this article is not notable. However, the specter of terrorism, even if one substantiated by a headdress is what adds a healthy dose of notability to an otherwise routine--and perhaps troubling--incident. Supertouch (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep.  In just a few hours since the triggering event took place, this has been covered in depth by what appears to be every major RS in the United States (see the refs in the article for a sampling, or hit google news), and now coverage from around the world is streaming in. Meets WP's notabilty standards.  Clearly not local "routine news coverage".--Epeefleche (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is still a one event type of individual. His event just happens to be covered by a lot of world media on a rather slow news day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many individuals are one-event individuals; especially arrested people. The question is the level of RS coverage.  Here, it is extraordinarily broad.  When you have 500 articles in the first 50 hours, and the largest RSs are all without exception covering it with multiple in-depth articles, it is notable.  BTW, there are 50,000 BLP articles that don't have even one footnote that are on wikipedia.  Among those one is more likely to find what is truly non-notable.  This article already has more RS coverage reflected that we likely have on the vast majority of existing wip articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment So go fix those other articles, that has no bearing on this issue.  Grsz 11  14:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. Here, it is part of a larger, cogent argument.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete He was arrested because he carried a gun. This is not notable. Media coverage will go away in a day and than this guy is another prisoner somewhere in the US. --Stone (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Media coverage continued, and spread to Europe, Asia, and South America.  His weapons were military-grade, and more than "a gun".  Woodson admitted he intended to use the weapons in furtherance of a violent crime. Fort Drum was notified by the authorities.  According to a law enforcement source, other items were recovered that could indicate ties by Woodson to radical Islam and a militant Islamic group based in the U.S.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete In order to preempt WP:NOTNEWS we need extensive, prolonged coverage. This was news for a day (maybe two) and despite the existence of articles about the subject, he does not pass WP:BLP1E for that reason.  Grsz 11  14:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Otherwise, any event that is two days old would never warrant a wikipedia article. Which is clearly not the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you can estimate that there will be prolonged new coverage. What makes you think that he will be in the news longer than two days? He is not a terrorist and he killed nobody. His 15 minutes of fame are over and thats not good enough for a wikipedia article.--Stone (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is a textbook example of why we have WP:NOTNEWS in the first place.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless something very much more comes of it. (I was asked my opinion of it before it was listed here, and I advised listing it for deletion). It is however false that we need prolonged coverage before we can have an article, if it appears reasonably likely to be of permanent interest. This is a good example of something that probably does not.  DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, this is a blatant BLP violation and example of why Wikipedia does not lead. Here we have official evidence and statements he was arrested but not convicted and most tellingly that he is not considered a terrorist. We likely could come up with numerous other things he has been accused of but to be notable as a criminal or terrorist we lack sources of either. Perhaps the article is simply too soon? Maybe he will become well-known but for now we remain not a WP:Crystal ball. -- Banj e  b oi   03:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, we routinely reflect those who have been arrested but not convicted. See, for example, the suspects in the Fort Hood shootings and the 2009 Christmas Day Bombing.  In those cases, as well, the charges are not at this point under terrorism statutes--that is not a requirement either.  The wikipedia test is not conviction.  Is is coverage in reliable sources, which we have an abundance of here -- literally hundreds, from across the US and around the world, in just three days -- much more coverage than we have vis-a-vis many others who have been at AfDs, and who have survived AfDs specifically because they were considered to have sufficient RS coverage to qualify as notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those people actually killed somebody or attempted to. All Lloyd did was get caught with weapons. The headdress reason for keeping the article is also concerning because it makes it look like he is notable because he was wearing one, he is "associated" with terrorism. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He was caught w/military grade weapons and a detailed map of a military establishment. He wasn't wearing the headdress--it was with his weapons and map.  It's not clear that he was associated with terrorism; preliminary conclusions were that no evidence of that had been discovered in the first few hours -- readers can draw their own conclusions, one of which may very well be a "false flag" one, particularly if it turns out he is not Muslim (though of course that is not for us to do -- synthesis, and all that).  But no doubt the press/public is interested because of the parallels to the Fort Hood shooting, and other attacks in the past few years on US military in the US.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nadal has about 4 to 5 times daily as many views as Nadal Hasan, according to Wikichecker. I also think that the counts for Lloyd will be inflated because he is up for an AFD and he has a current events tag on his page. In a few days, he will be unknown as people tend to forget this stuff rather quickly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The plentiful sources attest to the long-term notability. Perhaps the article can be renamed "Lloyd R. Woodson arrest".-- Pink Bull  03:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem w/the renaming of the article, if that is a consensus view (assuming redirects for his name to it).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps "Speculated planned attack on Fort Drum"? wjemather bigissue 23:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is the same problem with the "murder of" people articles when a murder that reaches international news coverage, but it is argued that the person that was murdered is not notable. Coverage of the person extends back to his Navy desertion days, so his biography is notable in itself beyond this single arrest, especially since his arsenal goes way beyond Nidal Hassan's two handguns. Unlike Flight 253 or Fort Hood, there is no notable location or name for this event besides the name of the man unless it's the "quickie mart attack plot" or some similar title that becomes popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachcell  (talk • contribs)  04:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS. I'll change my mind if this is still getting media attention in a week, but for now it just seems like another crime story of brief news interest but no lasting notability. Robofish (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I would normally say that WP:BLP1E applies, except that there's no event associated with this person. Must have been a slow news day or something, but WP:NOTNEWS still applies. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Now the initial hysteria has passed, it is clear that unless something major happens, this is a non-notable news story. Indeed, it is a minor news story that has rightly been given no coverage at all in many countries, including the UK. The short sub-section in the Fort Drum article more than adequately covers the subject, and I'm not entirely sure that is necessary either. wjemather bigissue 09:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagine the "hysteria" you refer to is the coverage in many RSs of his arrest. RS coverage in hundreds of news articles, even if you view it as hysterical in nature (reflecting your POV), is precisely the indicia we look for to determine if an article is noteworthy.  The article itself already reflects coverage -- generally in full-length articles -- by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, UPI, Fox News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Boston Herald, and Forbes, among others, as well as in France in the Agence France-Presse.
 * Furthermore, contrary to your insinuation, it's clearly more than local news, and there is no requirement of course that the Brits cover it. That said, it also is apparently being covered in The Netherlands, Hungary, Canada,, Poland, Brazil, Pakistan, Taiwan, and the Spanish-language Univision.  You may have missed those as you were looking for coverage outside the U.S.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would ask you to not misrepresent what I said. Nowhere did I say this was a local news story. I stated that the press in many countries including the UK have not reported this incident at all. That still stands. These are news providers that pick up all the major news wires (AP, Reuters, AFP, etc.), but they have chosen to ignore this story. In addition, based on gnews, there has been barely any coverage in the past 2–3 days. The hysteria (yes, my POV) was due to the initial assumption that the guy was some kind of terrorist, which has since been dispelled. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, volume of news coverage is not an indicator of notability, and the widespead reporting that you cite is simply routine coverage. wjemather bigissue 23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If all you meant to say was that the incident has been reported on in the U.S., France, The Netherlands, Hungary, Canada, Poland, Brazil, Pakistan, and Taiwan, but not in the U.K. to your knowledge and some other countries, that is not especially strong support for your vote. IMHO.  As to what the initial coverage was due to -- you've no basis at all for your statement.  Indeed, the earliest indication was that Woodson did not appear to have a link to a known terrorist group or a terrorist plot, but it was stressed that that was only a "preliminary finding."  Second, later reports have indicated that Woodson admitted he intended to use the weapons in furtherance of a violent crime (that just came out Friday), and that other items were recovered that could indicate ties by Woodson to radical Islam and a militant Islamic group based in the U.S.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment. This appears to be an attempt to censor what on the face of it appears to be yet another plot of a violent attack on an Army base, so far every one including Little Rock, Fort Hood, and the underpants bomber motivated by the Jihadist belief that US soldiers must be killed according to Islamic decree. The suspect has already admitted intention to commit crimes with the small arsenal that he had. The fact that the FBI has pronounced this not a terrorist act so quickly makes this notable, and likely that like Fort Hood, the statement is a cover-up that there is enough evidence pointing to terrorism to make it worth doing a cover up. The authorities will NOT comment further on what the guy said. This is a significant event, even if it dies down remains a notable event as part of a pattern of violence against military and civilian targets by Jihadists, even if it proves to be a false link (and so far there have been no false positives)Bachcell (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The user already voted "keep" above. This vote is not needed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No doubt he meant to header it a Comment. I've made the change for him above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, if that's the way that it works. Now information says that he intended to commit violent crimes, and evidence points to islamic extremist connections. This is not just your normal neighborhood police blotter when sombody's car got broken into down the street. What is the real motivation for voting to suppress what looks like yet another attempted attack similar to Little Rock, fort Hood, and fort Dix??? How many of these people are still convinced Fort Hood had no connections to terrorism, as the FBI and Army have unbelievably concluded? Bachcell (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would recommend sticking to policy discussion and moving away from vague mumblings about conspiracies. Ridernyc (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS, notable for one event that the media tried to sensationalize. Article is already turning into a POV nightmare for one event.  If there are new developments, and if there is continued in depth coverage recreate the article. Ridernyc (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a topic of ongoing public interest. Woodson may be notable only for one event, but in the absence of any obvious target for a move or redirect, I think it's appropriate that his name should be the article title. This clearly goes way beyond an ordinary "guy gets arrested for unlicensed gun collection" news story. Wikipedia is not news but we do have many articles on notable events which have been reported in the news, and rightly so; and significantly, we also have a neutral point of view policy which is enforced usually quite effectively through collective editing. Maintaining this article on a notable subject serves the public interest. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Zero gnews hits for over two days would indicate interest has gone away. There is a POV issue with regards speculation and conspiracy therories related to terrorism. The article's creator and it's major contributor are both pushing this issue and have done so both in this article and others by insisting on links to islamic groups and other attacks such as Fort Hood. I have contested some additions which have been reverted, and attemped discussion but other than the two editors mentioned, there is no-one else seemingly prepared to engage in the discussion, so natural collective editing consensus is not happening here. Finally, WP is an encyclopedia, it is not here to serve the public interest. wjemather bigissue 09:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it? I thought that was kind of the point of a free encyclopaedia.Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After the first event (the arrest, which was broadly covered), the second series of events (the court appearances) was also broadly covered. "No gnews hits in two days" is hardly a wikipedia notability test warranting deletion -- if it were, much of wikipedia would be deleted.  Plus, it was just yesterday that this was covered in an editorial, and it has been the subject of articles by the newspapers with four of the five largest circulations in the U.S. (among others) --Epeefleche (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP provides a service to the public, that of an encyclopaedia. Serving the public interest is an entirely different thing. News stories require more than routine coverage to meet criteria for inclusion. Google news hits, as I stated, is an indicator of long term coverage, one of the criteria that could be met. Widespread routine coverage is specifically not one of the criteria, but editorials are. However the single one you cite is a critique of the Obama administration and not an article about this Woodson or his arrest. Any mention of him is incidental to the piece. wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 18:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In today's world, one lives with a sensationalization of events that are rather trivial. This one is just that. So what if he had guns? I'm sure that if he didn't have a headdress, there wouldn't be an article on him. Fox News could've reported it in a different tone than the BBC, so there is also a bias that must be contended when writing an article. I actually just Googled his name, and this page came up. I think we should consider a neutral view when writing articles, as his is also full of a lot of fluff. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2010 (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.