Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd R. Woodson (2nd nomination)

Lloyd R. Woodson

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Lloyd R. Woodson
• Articles for deletion/Lloyd R. Woodson (2nd nomination)

Lloyd R. Woodson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Same article that was already deleted. Nothing but POV pushing by an increasingly disruptive minority of editors. Be prepared for massive disruption and accusations of conspiracy and bad faith, I urge people taking part in this debate to focus on the article being discussed and not other editors. Ridernyc (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing has changed since the first AfD. WP:NOTNEWS still applies. The article should have gone to deletion review instead of being reposted, and it still remains substantially the same as its prior incarnation despite promises of enhancements and a raft of new coverage. There has in fact been minimal follow up coverage in the local media, just a handful of reports of his indictment and fringe coverage related to honouring of officers.
  Further to the NPOV problems, for an apparently non-terrorism related incident, the word terror (including derivatives) is used an incredible 18 times throughout the article, 5 of which are in the second paragraph. This is clearly being used as a WP:COATRACK for other issues such as conspiracy theories about the authorities definition of terrorism. _wjemather^bigissue 21:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. To quote the deletion review page "Deletion review review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions." As far as I'm aware no-one is disputing the original deletion or the decision reached so deletion review is not the appropriate venue. The article having been recreated G4 should have (and was) considered but, in my opinion, correctly deemed not appropriate as the article, having been improved, no longer met the "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" criteria and I also believe it was no longer "substantially identical" to the original. Both of these are matters of interpretation but per deletion policy "If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions" therefore I feel this article has ended up in the right venue. Disclosure: I removed the speedy tag the second time after it was inappropriately re-added as it had been removed by someone other than the page creator (i.e. at the time I removed it again on process grounds not on its merits). However I have also stated that I was not adverse to another AfD. My view on whether this article should be deleted is below. Dpmuk (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. I believe that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E apply. While there is ongoing coverage it is, in my opinion, routine coverage of an ongoing judicial process and so still one event. If the subject gets substantial coverage that is independent of an event in the case then I may re-consider but while they continue to get coverage only when routine events in the case occur I do not believe it is sufficient to meet the exception in WP:BLP1E. Dpmuk (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I still stand by my delete vote despite the updates to the page. In my mind this is still one event (as everything that has happened since his arrest is a naturally following consequence). To meet the exception in WP:BLP1E I'd like to see some coverage of him not directly related to his arrest and what normally follows an arrest. As an example in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the introduction of full body scanners and other changes to airport security measures which were also newsworthy and which were as a direct result of his actions cross the line into making the event significantly notable that we should cover it. I except however that this is only one interpretation of WP:BLP1E (and by the looks of things possibly one of the more extreme ones) and respect that other people have different interpretations of the policy. With that in mind I would ask that people are more careful when making allegations (as several times below), a differing interpretation is not necessary clearly wrong. As far as I'm aware I've never interacted with any of the editors in this dispute before I stumbled across it because of the speedy tag. I have formed my own opinion with any pre-conceptions and my view of any editor has in no way influenced my decision. Dpmuk (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• DeleteComment If it's about the person, it's a clear case of BLP1E; if it'sabout the case, it should be moved. I think there should definitely be a WP article on this, however it be titled. I have no time to work on this right now, but will try and address Mather's concerns in a few days. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 00:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. The overabundance and time-spanning news coverage indicate this event has moved beyond wp:notnews.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I have no idea why anyone would want to delete this. This is clearly newsworthy and encyclopedic. It was all over the news, and it will continue to be. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Coment the people claiming this is and has been all over the news need to provide links because this [1] [2] graphically shows a small spike then nothing for 2 months. In other words the graphical representation of one event. Also please read the previous AFD before commenting since we went over all of this back then. Ridernyc (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've also been fooled by gnews from time to time. A better measure of the most recent coverage, weeks after the initial event of his arrest, is reflected in a google search. Or take a look for starters at the refs at 9-10, 33-41, and 61 in the article itself, describing the weeks-later events of his indictment, the awards handed out to the police and store clerks, and the recent characterization by the Branchburg Police Chief to the arrest as being the most significant one in the department's history.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since eight of those sources were the same AP news release, it served no purpose repeating them, so I have removed all but one of them and reused a single instance. And in any case only one of your new sources is more recent coverage – that relating the to honouring of the officers. _wjemather^bigissue 07:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• While working off the same news release, they were not identical. No worries, though. For those who wish to see the articles that WJE deleted, which were printed in newspapers all across the country, in various RSs, weeks after the initial event (the arrest), about the subsequent indictment, you can find them here. The point remains the same.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• They were not working off the same release, they were identical, word-for-word. And having just finished wading through the other sources, it is obvious that the article has been over-referenced (if there can be such a thing) in order to exaggerate the scope of the coverage. Many of the references are duplications of the same newswire reports, just published by different media. For instance, as of this revision, refs nos 1, 9, 14, 29, 30, 33, 39 are the same Mulvihill authored AP wire story. _wjemather^bigissue 17:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep delete !voters have not articulated any reason which requires deletion to solve: If there's coatrack, remove it through editing. If this should be titled after an event rather than a person, rename it. NOTNEWS should really be changed to NOTCURRENTNEWS, because durability in the news and a variety of media coverage are a strong indication of notability. The ongoing coverage demonstrates that V and N are met, and there's no compelling argument per NOT that this should be removed. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is really about the case rather than the person, so BLP1E is moot. Whether the article should be retitled is debatable - no obvious alternative title comes to mind. The case is clearly notable, and this doesn't fall into NOTNEWS either. --Michig (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I struggle to understand. He has been covered for two months, by dozens of articles. How is that WP:NOTNEWS? And we didnt delete Abdul Mutallab or others like him because of WP:1E. Of course, Muallab is an extreme case with many more articles, but I hope I'm making myself clear.--Gilisa (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I slept on this last night to let my mind sort out the issues. When I first read the Woodson article, it struck me as perfectly notable enough. As I studied and studied it and further picked it apart with a critical eye, I started perceiving weaknesses in its notability. So I withdrew an earlier Keep vote, slept on it, and was coming here to vote regardless of how others voted. Here is my reason for voting Keep: As much as the nominator and his friend would like everyone here to focus only on the article and judge it on its merits (seems reasonable enough on the surface), the reall reason we are all here wasting our time on another bit of wikidrama is because a long running feud between three editors that continually results in edit battles, tags slapped on articles, and other things we don’t need on Wikipedia. For whatever reason, Epeefleche’s work keeps on being subjected to the critical eyes of this other editor and his friend (the nominator of this AfD). They somehow materialize to give Epeefleche’s work an exceedingly critical once-over (and twice over, and thrice over). I’ve seen the battles and and arguments and find much of it to be truly absurd. The simple fact is that this is all over a long-running feud and it is all needless. In my view, these three editors should be required—via ArbCom or an ANI—to stay away from each other and all will be much better. The Woodson article has 54 citations and is clearly the product of a great deal of work by Epeefleche. We shouldn’t have the hard labors of another Wikipedian be routinely assailed by the same pair of editors. If there are shortcomings in Epeefleche’s work, let the rest of the community weigh in and naturally resolve things in due course. To WJE and the nominator: I suggest you take Epeefleche off your watch list (or whatever else it is you do). With 6,905,239 articles on Wikipedia, it seems exceedingly unlikely that you two just randomly stumble across his work. If your answer is “I just look at New Article lists and call ‘em like I see ‘em,” then the simple solution is check the edit history and if it magically happens to be Epeefleche, just stay away. Wikipedia will be better off without all this needless wikidrama. Greg L (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• So, in short, you have come here to support your friend, throw some more dirt at me because you are still upset that I raised issues with an article you started, and have no policy reason for your keep vote. _wjemather^bigissue 17:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Someone once asked Abraham Lincoln what religion he adhered to. He replied “When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.” Same for me; I come to the defense of those who need defending—always. I suggest two things to you, Wjemather: 1) Please stop wrapping yourself in the banner of righteous indignation every single time someone criticizes your behavior on Wikipedia, and 2) Just stay away from Epeefleche and I’m sure peace will break out upon the land, crops will flourish, midwives will sing, etcetera. Greg L (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

  P.S. As for your suggesting that I have no “policy” based reasons to vote Keep : 1) I second what brewcrewer wrote, and 2) I am mindful of Wikipedia:Harassment, which seems to be increasingly applicable with you and Epeefleche’s articles. Greg L (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not going to further entertain your provocation and side-tracking antics here. Thanks for coming though. _wjemather^bigissue 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete As the nominator of the AFD the last time, nothing has changed. This is a one event type of person and all Bachcell seems to have done is just made the article bigger with more international sources. The creator seems to have gone to Google News, taken a bunch of Associated Press articles that stated the same thing, but were published by different news sources, and added them here. This method seems to be an attempt to say that it is covered internationally. Over a year ago, we had an incident nearby where a 13 year old helped kill his 16 year old half brother. I created an article, and a few months later it was deleted per one event. I accepted that with the intent of recreating it when the trial came around. When I was searching for sources for the article, I found many international news sources. I took some of them, but I focused on the local papers as they were more comprehensive. There was also a lower risk of me repeating my sources. I also think that the notability of this guy was a bit overblown. If I was to get caught with an arsenal that big with a turban, I'm sure the BBC would report on me because I had a turban and guns. We live in a culture where a guy with a gun and a turban seems to be construed as a potential terrorist. He's being argued for notability on that fact. If he had a ton of weapons or a turban, he would've just been another man. The fact that he had both has made people think that he is someone that we should worry about. So what, it really doesn't matter what he had. I don't see him being any different from the radical guy down the street who doesn't like the government. He is currently sitting in a county jail right now. To me, this means that he isn't considered that big of a risk. This also ties into his notability in that if he was of a higher security risk, he would probably be in a higher security jail as the government would be fearful of him being out there. He also didn't have maps or a plan, which is consistent with others who want to do harm to the country. When all is said and done, he will probably get at least ten years in prison, and he will be forgotten about. In addition, this is neither an attack on the editors, nor does it represent my views of them. I respect all of the contributors of the articles, but I believe that their actions when trying to establish notability of Lloyd are done in a way which I don't approve of. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Per the reasons stated above by others. SteveB67 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. The various subjects discussed in the article have been covered extensively over the past two months by media across the U.S. (ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, UPI, The Baltimore Sun, The Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Forbes, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Post, The New York Times, The San Diego Union-Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, the St. Petersburg Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, USA Today, Associated Press, Asbury Park Press, Charlotte Observer, Daily Record, Fairfax Times, Las Vegas Sun, The Messenger-Gazette, Star-Ledger, Stars and Stripes, CSP TV, News 12 Networks, and WHSV-TV). It has also been covered by media in Canada (Canada Free Press and The Toronto Sun), France (AFP), New Zealand (The New Zealand Herald), Pakistan (Daily Times (Pakistan)), and Taiwan (Taiwan News). Wolf Blitzer and Rick Sanchez raised it on their national talk shows. Nor have these been passing references; the vast majority of the indicated refs focused entirely on the matters that are the subject of this article.
  I agree with the consensus view expressed above that this is a keep. WP:NOTNEWS is wholly inapplicable, as many editors have already indicated. That is for items such as “routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities”. What we have here, in contrast, is dozens of articles in major RSs and across the world, over many weeks. Similarly, Wikipedia:Coatrack not only doesn’t apply to this article, it bears not at all on the issue of the notability of the various subjects discussed in the article, as JClemens points out. WP:BLP1E does not apply, as RSs here cover a number of events, including the background of Woodson, his arrest, his state charge, his federal arraignment, his state grand jury indictment, and related awards – and do so in high-profile national and international coverage, persistent over a number of weeks, in at least five dozen RSs reflected in the article and here (many of which were articles that appeared all across the U.S. subsequent to the close of the prior AfD). The comments by the minority of delete voters that “nothing has changed” is therefore unsupported by the facts, as a look at the many RS refs in the article and at the refs that WJE has deleted from the article (but which I linked to above), which were printed/reported after the last AfD, clearly demonstrate. Some of the minority delete comments contain synthesis, and/or mistakes (e.g., “He also didn't have maps … which is consistent with others who want to do harm to the country.”), and/or irrelevant comments comments (e.g., criticism of the RSs for covering the subjects so intensely, guesses as to why they did so, crystal-balling etc.). For whatever reasons, the minority delete voters appear to be turning Nelson’s eye to the clear, notable, ongoing, high-level, national and international RS coverage here, which ineluctably reflect notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, references were not removed – if they had been, that would be vandalism. There was a single AP story that you had retrieved from seven or eight different sources and scattered all over the article to try an exaggerate the coverage. There are several other instances where you have done the same thing, but I have not yet had the time to clean them up.
  WP:NOTNEWS absolutely does apply. It is to be expected the there will be some coverage of his indictment and in the future his trial and sentencing. That does not make this notable, otherwise we would have articles on every violent crime (which this is not).
  The only thing which marks this out is certain individual's desire to link Woodson to terrorism (preferably the Islamist variety), as highlighted by the giant coat that is the Investigation and intentions section. This intention has been made clear by the creator of the article (along with claims of a Wikipedia cover-up during the first AfD and elsewhere) and followed up by it's major contributor, with his insistence on links to and from entirely unrelated attack articles.
  This incident has been discussed more here on Wikipedia than it has in the real world, which should tell you all you need to know. _wjemather^bigissue 08:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Factsontheground (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. This has to be the most absurd nomination for a deletion ever on WP. The thing is huge with lots of international and national coverage BECAUSE it looks exactly like a guy with jihadist links about to attack an army base, and it has to be deleted because 1) it's just one event 2) it looks like a conspiracy theory 3) it was deleted before? It's ridiculous to claim an event with this much coverage as one event, and there's not reason this MUST be deleted because it's harmful, not notable, or pure nonsense. The people who keep on promoting AFD's like this are clearly promoting one POV and supressing another POV. NOTNEWS is simply silly, otherwise you might as well get rid of the Fort Hood Attack since it's all about news about one event, never mind the article on this fellow covers his entire known life, as well as the officers involved. "This incident has been discussed more here on Wikipedia than it has in the real world, which should tell you all you need to know." There is nothing in this very large and detailed article that has NOT come from real world coverage, and that should tell you nothing with THIS much coverage, including many, many links to terrorism from the people doing the investigating in mainstream news sources needs to be deleted unless it is surpressing a POV. There is not just one individual "desiring" to link the incident to terrorism, but several WP contributors who have had to fight against a number of WP editors evidently determined to censor any evidence or incidents that could be associated with Islamist terrorism (witness that Fort Hood Shooting STILL enforces a ban on a terrorism category, largely because of the same crowd advocating the deletion of this article) NOTNEWS is not a reason for deletion of an article, especially one this extensively covered by national, international sources over this long a period of time. Could somebody correct my impression that NPOV means airing (not deleting) ALL notable points of view? Where does NPOV state that any obvious POV should be deleted rather than balanced? Bachcell (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting you: Where does NPOV state that any obvious POV should be deleted rather than balanced? Sweet. I agree. I’ll have to remember that one. Greg L (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• The article that I mentioned above that I was involved in has 3,240 Google hits. Lloyd has 1,990. My page was deleted for lack of notability and it was also internationally covered. Not every article with over a thousand Google hits is notable by our standards. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's a red herring argument, the inverse of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As that guideline suggests, an argument to avoid at an AfD discussion is "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this"--which is precisely Kevin's argument. I doubt many editors have the interest in checking that article, and what its other problems may have been, etc., and as that guideline suggests it would be a diversion from the issue at hand. I'm confident that many more articles could be reflected that have lesser RS coverage than the article here, but that would move us away from focus on the pertinent point. Notability under wp policies is evidenced by broad, national and international coverage, on high-level and many different RSs, and national talk shows, as we've seen in the dozens of refs (and deleted refs) here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Again, many duplicate references placed to exaggerate the scope of coverage. _wjemather^bigissue 21:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Epee, I wasn't arguing the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS thing. I was talking about Google hits, not that. Don't warp my argument when I clearly wasn't using that at all. I was arguing that hit numbers aren't necessarily pertinent to the notability of an article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Apologies if I misunderstood. I read your comparison of the number of ghits that another (deleted) article had to the number of ghits that this article has, as well as your prior discussion of the deleted article, to be a comparison between the two, with you suggestingart that since the other article was deleted this one should be as well. Actually, if that wasn't what you were doing, I'm not sure what relevance your discussion of the other article has to this AfD. Anyway, I'm willing to walk away from this aspect of our discussion, since I believe it is distracting from the pertinent points. Best..--Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• I was just saying that Google hits don't necessarily make an article notable. My article had more hits and it was deleted, even though I sourced it well. Oh well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Bachcell has made no effort to hide his opinion that Woodson is a Islamist terrorist planning a jihadist attack, despite there being absolutely no reliable evidence to support that view. He clearly sees the article as a key component in his personal fight against terrorism and what he sees as censorship or a cover-up by the authorities and fellow Wikipedians. He has even accused other editors of being terrorist sympathisers for pointing out the problems with his synthesis. _wjemather^bigissue 21:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• WJE--you miss some points. First of all, if RSs all across the country report a matter, that constitutes widespread coverage in RSs of the matter. It matters not a jot whether they worked off the same AP article. The point, which you fail to appreciate and would appear to perhaps seek to obfuscate, is that the matter was reported extensively all across the country in all manner of RSs. That is indicia of reliablity. Even apart from those refs, we have over 50 others, from all manner of RS, both in the U.S. and outside the U.S. Again--those are indicia of notability. Finally, your personal attacks above on what you construe as Bachcell's personal viewpoints do not detract in the least from the valid points he makes. For all I care, you could be a ___ (fill in the blank with the most odious personality you can think of), but if your points are valid, I will accept them. Bachcell's are. Yours, as reflected in a number of responses on this page ... not so much. IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Very pleasant. _wjemather^bigissue 22:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't understand how this would not be newsworthy! How can we call Wikipedia an encyclopedia if we do not include an individual who has received such national media attention. We also cannot just delete this because it's in a state of disrepair; if you don't like it, then fix it! Don't take the easy way out and just wipe the article away. It would be absolutely absurd to delete this article; I can't find a single piece of criteria that it fails to meet! I saw somebody above mention the fact that over time, the article's hits on Gnews have decreased. That is a ridiculous chart to use as evidence, but if we are going to set the precedent that decreased coverage on Google News means the article is unremarkable, then I suggest we delete the article about the 9/11 attacks. [3] –BLM Platinum (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• No-one is saying it is not newsworthy, but that is what wikinews is for. This however is an encyclopaedia and long standing coverage or impact is required to warrant inclusion, and this event does not have that. I must also say good job so far in improving the article. _wjemather^bigissue 21:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Pardon me, what I ment to say is "notable", not "newsworthy". –BLM Platinum (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• @WJE -- Posh. Long-standing extensive coverage has clearly been demonstrated. The level of this conversation is deteriorating when assertions like that are still being made in the face of all that is reflected on this page and in this article.--Epeefleche (talk)

• I, and others, still view this as nothing more than a news story. News stories such as this quite often extend over a period of time as the wheels of justice move slowly. However, there is no long term notability in this incident that I can see. _wjemather^bigissue 22:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• If I am counting correctly, 3 others agreed with you, largely either before the article was filled out, or with no or questionable analysis, while 10 think it should be kept (though there may be some discussion as to form). If you read the criteria, this clearly meets it. Mischaracterizations and deletions of weeks-long coverage across the country, on national news shows, and outside the U.S. do little to aid in us reaching a proper conclusion at an AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• You are indeed counting correctly. I’m not seeing the vaguest hint of a consensus here that the article’s “…title … seems not to accurately describe the article's subject matter” nor that the article “needs rescuing” nor that it needs “deletion” from Wikipedia. There is clearly no need for any of the three tags on the article. When this AfD is over, all three shall be removed from the article. If you, Wjemather, want to keep harping about the article and want to enumerate all its shortcomings, you are perfectly free to do so. But you can do so without tags that force people to interact with you so their hard work doesn’t look all crapped-on.. Greg L (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am sure you are both aware that this is not a headcount. Nor is it a discussion on the article title, which will be had should it survive this process. It is also evident that I am not the only editor who can see that problems exist with the article, since Epeefleche saw fit to flag the article for rescue. _wjemather^bigissue 23:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting you: …this is not a headcount. Ahhh…yup; aware of that. It’s the tiresome refrain that the loosing side digs up when they don’t like the results of AfDs and RfCs. According to Wikipedia policy, “consensus” is as much about the weight of the arguments as it is the headcounts; they go hand in hand. Lucky you; if it was solely based on the “weight of the arguments,” then this would have been over as soon as it started. Greg L (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  P.S. Not to let wikilawyering get in the way of common sense or anything like that… It’s clear using—you know, common sense—that Epeefleche put the “rescue this article”-tag there as a strategic counter-ploy to counter your “delete, nuke, and trample with a team of horses”-tag. You know: as a community alternative. I have little patience for playing wikigames. The article is clearly in no need of being rescued; that much is clear. As I mentioned above, this is all a bunch of wikidrama you and Ridernyc dragged everyone into because you two have a long-running feud going with Epeefleche. I have no patience for it because it clearly took him huge amounts of time to put together that article and cite the living crap out of it. It took you and Ridernyc mere minutes to slap your tags to force debate and a showdown. Greg L (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• It would be nice is you could possibly contribute in a constructive manner, instead of continuing your smear campaign. The only one playing games here is you, Greg, and it's about time it stopped. How about allowing everyone to discuss the article instead of trying to discredit other editors with phoney claims of feuds, drama and showdowns. _wjemather^bigissue 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• That little ol’ Bat-mirror of yours won’t save your skin here. You’ve had a long-running feud with Epeefleche and this is simply part of it. If you’re smart, you’ll make this your last encounter with Epeefleche, otherwise the community will have a long, hard look at whether your activities simply amount to stalking and needless conflict. Wikipedia is far and away large enough of a place for you to find plenty to do without worrying about Epeefleche; the rest of the community is perfectly capable of protecting itself from him without your “help.” By the way, quoting you: Nor is it a discussion on the article title, which will be had should it survive this process. Nope. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy for you to exploit at every turn in order to drag out your issues. Common sense will be the basis going forward from here. This battle of yours will end even though you could technically find still more {I DON'T LIKE IT}-tags to force debate and drama. The tags have been there at the top of the linked article for all to see throughout this AfD and it’s clear the consensus is that the title of the article is no concern to anyone else but you two. No one else here thinks an article titled “Lloyd R. Woodson” is really about Mickey Mouse. Unless you can show a consensus here agreeing with your allegations, all the tags go. Period. Greg L (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Delete or Keep, it's clearly got WP:NPOV/WP:COATRACK issues. Studerby (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment For a non-notable event that is overblown by the press, it's getting as much or more hits than other terrorism related articles, nearly 500 per day for a topic that's supposedly dead. For comparison:

434 hits lloyd r woodson 31 Joseph T. Thomas (convicted of terrorism in australia, overturned) 512-5000 Colleen LaRose (jihad jane) 341-1400 Anwar al-Awlaki No charges or arrest on terrorism, but on US death list as threat to US 12-64 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting Admitted to jihad motive nearly immediately,

now claims direct ties to Al Queda. Bachcell (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment While entirely agreeing with you, Bachcell, that the article is perfectly notable, one can't base much off of daily hits because when an AfD is ongoing, there is a lot of clicking on the article by Wikipedians and that will inflate the hits that Lloyd R. Woodson receives. If one were going to judge notability based off of hit counts, then Bart's Comet (a whole article about the 14th episode of the 6th season of the animated cartoon series The Simpsons) would be toast. Why? Well, it receives a median value of only about 72 hits per day. So as you can see, really, really (insert your superlative here) notable and encyclopedic articles like Bart’s Comet might only receive a limited number of readers even though they clearly are deserving of being in any fine encyclopedia. <grin> Greg L (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment See top: 'Same article that was already deleted. Nothing but POV pushing by an increasingly disruptive minority of editors. Be prepared for massive disruption and accusations of conspiracy and bad faith, I urge people taking part in this debate to focus on the article being discussed and not other editors. Ridernyc (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Oh… come on, Ridernyc. Who are you trying to kid? You and Wjemather have had a long-running feud with Epeefleche; don’t try to pretend that you two just stumbled across yet another article of his by pure accident. The rest of the community is getting tired of the conflict you two create because you three don’t play well together. Greg L (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it the people who do the accusing are often the ones guilty of doing something? This deletion process is the POV pushing by an increasingly disruptive minority of editors, in contrast to editors who have consistently added well-researched and balanced material to articles regarding the topic of violence motivated by politics and religion. The article presents a balanced presentation of notable opinions and facts, including FBI initial conclusions that it is not linked to terrorism, and other pieces of evidence which fits a pattern of similar attacks or threats on US bases, mostly linked to Islamism. It is not the same article, it has been updated with new information, which further shows the notability and importance of the topic, and suitabity of the article earlier is a different argument later in time. The contributions of those who continue impede improvement of these topics and incorporating new and more complete information is characterized by charges of promoting conspiracy theories merely by including notable statements from RS mainstream news sources, and characterized by unconstructive reverts and deletions rather than balance. The belief that the Woodson as individual and incident must be completely deleted from WP is completely counter to the principle of neutral point of view, as it deletes rather than presents all points of controversy. Bachcell (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This is pure deletionism in it's most extreme form. The guidelines set forth in WP:ONEEVENT are exactly that: guidelines! Monica Lewinsky, is she not known for only one event? What about Zacarias Moussaoui? ONEEVENT is clearly meant to prevent, for example, the woman who was killed by a whale at Seaworld about a month ago, from getting a biography on Wikipedia. The woman received significant coverage from every single major news outlet: BBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and the AP; but does not have an article. People in this discussion are misinterpreting ONEEVENT. Woodson fits just about every single guideline or rule you can throw at him. –BLM Platinum (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good point. I completely agree with you. Greg L (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• The difference between the two incidents—Woodson and the woman at Seaworld—is that the incident involving Woodson comes in a post-9/11 environment with heightened sensitivity to anything even suspected to be related to terrorism, whereas there does not seem to be a larger trend of killer whales attacking humans. Also, the killer whale, Tilikum, does have have its own article (although it was involved in more than one event).--Supertouch (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't debating whether or not the Seaworld thing should have it's own article, I was saying that WP:ONEEVENT was meant to prevent events which received a total of around two days of press coverage from having articles; and that well-sourced articles about a major terrorist plot which are still getting attention are not ruled to be inappropriate for the encyclopedia by ONEEVENT. –BLM Platinum (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Were it not for the notability of the subject, an article of this size with this many references simply could not have been written.--Supertouch (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I could see why someone would argue One Event but Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) could be read to keep such an article. There has been tons of coverage on this. "Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope." There has already been a large amount of coverage from sources around the globe. It is safe to assume that we will see some continued coverage as the proceedings progress. Renaming it to the People v Dude might seem like a cop out on our part but the case does not fall under BLP1E and meets the GNG. And we do not know what the impact of this will be. Renominating this for deletion so soon seems premature without more time allowed to gauge ongoing coverage. All of the coatrack concerns should be addressed through general article clean up. So keep and maybe rename for now (state case seems more notable than the federal case). If there really are zero additional sources in the future consider revisiting it.Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Amen, duly noted in my files as as "good guy" Bachcell (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have given the article an extensive rewrite. I would ask all to please consider the article in light of the changes. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)