Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver

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 speedy keep. NW (Talk) 02:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another hot news of the day, not a notable factoid after that. Wikipedia is not news, especially obscure, non-notable news. A few reports at the time but not much after that. Even Balloon Boy got more reporting. President Obama is very popular but fanmail or fan article or fancrust is not for Wikipedia, maybe myspace. If not deleted, merge a few sentences to the Barack Obama article.

Even the press says this is really a nothing incident from a history standpoint. One newspaper wrote "We can say this: we're absolutely confident there is no credible threat to the candidate, the Democratic National Convention, or the people of Colorado." So this is a non-credible threat, if non-credible threats are articles, then whenever someone writes a "i'm going to kill mr. x" on Wikipedia, an article must be written!

Even the title confirms it is not for an encyclopedia. Scare? Who is scared? Maybe 2008 Barack Obama assassination plot in Denver? Or 2008 plot by 3 stooges in Denver (ok, not really a good title)

Looking back now, we can now say that this is obscure non-notable news. In 2008, we could claim we didn't know but now it is clear. Always was non-notable, still is, always will be, forever non-notable. Head of Security for the World (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once notable, always notable. The accusations remain notable, regardless of their validity. The article could use some cutting, tho. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of good cites, so notable. If nominator has concerns over article neutrality or title then they should be raised on the talk page or addressed. These are not reasons for deletion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Subsequent to this nomination, the nominator moved the article to 2008 Barack Obama alleged assassination plot in Denver.

Keep - Plenty of coverage to demonstrate notability, both at the time and in the following months. An incident like this one tends to have long-term repercussions, even though subsequent analysis indicated the three men did not pose a credible threat. By the way, I prefer the old "scare" title to the new "alleged assassination plot" title. Not only does the new title not parse well (I think the word order implies that Obama allegedly plotted to assassinate somebody), but it appears to me that "scare" is a better description of what happened than is "alleged plot". --Orlady (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE, has received significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's please keep it at the stable title during this AFD. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough detail and coverage to demonstrate notability. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the primary author of this article. The notability of this article has been discussed previously, and the article has gone through a GA review and been promoted to "Good Article" status. This article fits every one of the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines: it has received significant coverage, and it is well-cited by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For the record, too, the nominator of this AFD cites a "newspaper" which says "We're absolutely confident there is no credible threat." That isn't a newspaper saying that, it's an attorney involved in the case. Simply because he said it doesn't mean it's true, and even if it were true it wouldn't necessarily mean the article isn't warranted. However, the inclusion of his quote also proves the article presents both sides of this particular issue. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A presidential assassination attempt, even one unlikely to succeed, is clearly of encyclopedic merit and will continue to be in perpetuity. An extremely well-sourced, neutral article to boot. Steven Walling 01:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - pointy nomination by new user. No policy based reason given for deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.