Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Capitol shooting incident (2013)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

United States Capitol shooting incident (2013)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. This event does not meet WP:Notability guildlines. Martin 4 5 1  02:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this topic passes the General notability guideline with flying colors; it has 22 sources. I feel that this article passes NOTNEWS. The guideline exists to limit routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities from inclusion. This event is not routine reporting. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  03:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How does it demonstrate that it passes NOTNEWS ?  LGA talk  edits   07:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Not many people in the course of United States history have been shot to death by police while attacking the White House, the Capitol, or both. Yes, it was in the news. But that does not automatically exclude it from notability. If there is a "List of people killed attacking the US Capitol or White House" then by all means merge it there. Edison (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The woman concerned was not attacking the White House, or the Capitol. She was mentally ill and trying to visit Obama who she though was talking to her. This is not more notable that any other tragic shooting of an ill person. It had already been redirected to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2013 but that redirect was undone.Martin 4 5 1  20:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This event was unusual enough and of sufficient significance to transcend WP:NOTNEWS, it meets the general notability guideline, and is likely to be a notable incident cited in future works about security in Washington, DC and other national capitals.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How so ? and WP:BALL applies to the claim "is likely to be a notable incident cited in future works about security in Washington", when it is, then it is notable and not before.  LGA talk  edits   07:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This article fails the Wikipedia is not a newspaper policy clear and simple in that this is just a news story, the article fails to demonstrate what if any lasting effect it has or will have, nor how the event had any significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group, there is a absence of any significant or in-depth coverage in that all the sources are routine primary news reports and all from the 24 hour news cycle after the event. WikiNews is this way ->  LGA talk  edits   07:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete A deranged person behaves weirdly around the White House/Capitol and gets shot. Very tragic for certain. Unnecessary, possibly. Encyclopedic? Absolutely not. Made some noise in the news for 1 or 2 days, seems to have been forgotten by now. If ever it turns out to leave a lasting impact, the article could be resurrected, but at this point it is glaringly evident that right now there is nothing lasting in evidence. --Randykitty (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In the news for "1 or 2 days"? There have been new reports and commentary in a wide variety of outlets every single day. Try searching "Miriam Carey" in GoogleNews. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete because WP is not a newspaper. It was only notable on the day it happened, but it has no wider context in an encyclopedia.—GoldRingChip 11:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The unique circumstances of the event are well beyond the commonplace crimes etc. to which WP:NOTNEWS is addressed. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a news item that has no lasting notability. A mentally ill woman tries to visit the president and ends up dead. Tragic yes, but not encyclopaedic.Martin 4 5 1  20:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if that simple description turns out to be entirely correct, have you never heard of Samuel Byck? SteveStrummer (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I gingerly suggest that someone stealing a gun, killing a police officer, killing a pilot while trying to hijack a plane in order to fly it into the White House, and finally committing suicide when the plan failed is just a teenie weenie bit different. --Randykitty (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Unique circumstances. not common one event.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The last two !votes refer to the event being "unique", without any further specification. Any event will have some special particularities, of course. In any case, what's so uniquer about this? Deranged person thinks she communicates with the US president, drives to the White House, flees, and gets shot near the Capitol. She was unarmed, I can't see this as an "attack" on either the White House or the Capitol either. Nothing special here, in short. --Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Violence at the White House and a killing on the Capitol grounds are nothing special? Reporters and journalists disagree with you: they are incredibly unusual events, which is why they made headlines all around the world and continue to be examined. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete When it comes to an event like this, you just have to wonder. It would seem that personal opinion is replacing policy. With this event, you have something that occurred. Obviously, it would be wrong for the news not to report it. So they reported it. Meanwhile, nothing happens. Nobody gives this event a second thought a day after. The policy this would fall under is WP:EVENT. It is hardly satisfied, as long-standing coverage is not found, so, as a failure of the policy, it should be deleted. However, people are giving the standard "clearly passes GNG" and "it's unusual" comments that you find everywhere. It's obviously not notable. If people feel like challenging the current guidelines, so be it, but as of now this is clearly unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a crime dictionary for everything that happens involving a person and a gun. Beerest355  Talk 00:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, can everyone stop saying this is "obviously notable" or "obviously not"? It's condescending and rude; if this were obvious one way or another, we wouldn't be having this debate. Now that I've got that out of the way... keep per the longstanding practice that when people die in altercations at the White House or Capitol, we write an article about it. I doubt most people have heard of a lot of the past shootings at the other buildings, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable. They are discussed for years after, as they have long-term effects on the District's security structure, and because, simply, they're rare. Now, rarity doesn't mean automatic notability, of course. For instance, tonight a woman was arrested on the floor of the House; I happened to be there, and according to a cop I talked to, this is quite rare... But we can probably all agree that that doesn't deserve its own article, nor even probably a mention in any other article. But here's the difference: If in two years the Capitol police step up their security substantially, Miriam Carey will almost certainly be mentioned, while today's probably-mentally-ill stenographer almost certainly will not. This story will be in the news, on and off, for months if not years. It's not just the rarity, it's the combination of the rarity and the amount of coverage. Perhaps I'm slightly biased here, because this was a few blocks from where I live, but I think it makes sense to have articles on this incident and all ones like it. As to policy... someone please quote me the portion of NOTNEWS that says we can't have articles on headline-making unusual news stories. NOTNEWS seems to mostly address routine news stories, which this was anything but. On the other hand, notability is not temporary. Personally, I think we'd all be better off if people cited NOTNEWS less... You can want a current-events article deleted without having to fall back on that. It seems like one of those policies that's intended for a very specific type of article, and is taken to be something far broader. I think there's an essay somewhere out ther about the dangers of concise policy shortcuts, and how easy it is to make it sound like they support an extreme position... — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  11:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The location of a persons death does not make it wp:notable. You are using wp:crystal to claim it may change security in the future. Notability guidelines do not claim a death on the US Capitol is any more notable than at the Bundestag, Kremlin or Downing Street. Martin 4 5 1  21:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Unique circumstances- this was the US Capitol, during a government shutdown SOXROX (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How do unique circumstances make it WP:NOTABLE. Notability is established by long term third party mentions, not by being unique. There are all sorts of crimes that are unique, but completely un-notable.Martin 4 5 1  21:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article fails WP:NOTABILITY and is a good example of a criteria for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. The topic will not be notable 5 years from now, and its occurrence during a government shutdown is arbitrary; this event would still be an unnotable news event if it had occurred an any other given week. This type of topic can be transwikied to the Wikinews depository as it does not belong in an encyclopedia. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, this article will remain a perma-stub with little chance of expansion due to a lack of notable content about the topic. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of WP:LASTING significance. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep event is notable and deserves article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireflyfanboy (talk • contribs) 00:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of sources to clearly indicate the subject's notability. Everyking (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable incident, sufficient coverage, and in my opinion the sort of the thing that will be remembered.  We can always revisit at another AfD a year from now, it won't hurt anything by existing in the interim while our subjective views gel.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That argument is invalid, and your opinions or any other editor's opinions are irrelevant to the article's lack of lasting notability. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2013 (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.