Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attempted assassination of Nancy Pelosi

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 the article for now and consider merging or deletion later. Not a single comment beyond the nominator proposes a compelling argument for immediate deletion of an evolving event that clearly meets general notability—the only question is whether a separate article is merited or not. The encyclopedic material is substantial compared to the current biography of Paul Pelosi, and it's not solely about Nancy Pelosi, so merging is not the clear solution at this time. Draftifying is not appropriate either, given the preponderance of reliable source material obviously proving basic notability. Steven Walling • talk 05:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted assassination of Nancy Pelosi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Too soon. Title is problematic. Most sources mention an unclear motive. None mention an assassination attempt. While it's plausible, it's original research at the moment. Mooonswimmer 17:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — It is very, very clear that this is an attempt to kill Nancy Pelosi from a source the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN are citing, because the assailant said "Where is Pelosi?" and attacked Paul Pelosi. An attempted attack on Pelosi is already notable, compounded with the successful attack on her husband. More information will come out before this AfD closes. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you can say that with confidence. Jocelyn doubleday (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly seems that way. It's difficult to imagine what DePape's goals were here other than harming Nancy Pelosi. It's possible there was some other motive, but it seems very clear there was an intention to attack. Genabab (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate by WP:NOTNEWS until there is more information by reliable sources. I suggest drafting the article and working on it as more information is released. There's no need to rush an article out until there's actual content to write about. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 18:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I draftified the article with the same thoughts, but it was moved back to the mainspace by @ElijahPepe. Mooonswimmer 18:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the motive is "unclear," you're lying. Paul Pelosi was tied up "until Nancy gets back" and the attacker shouted "where is Nancy?" while attacking him with a hammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaiahlaitinen99 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a highly notable attack and it is clear that the Speaker of the House was the intended target. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree with the title? Is calling it an assassination attempt appropriate at the moment? Do any reliable sources refer to the attack as such? Mooonswimmer 18:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title can be discussed later, but deleting the article is not the solution. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information may be all very new but that's never been a criteria for deletion. This definitely looks like an assassination attempt. At worst, it may need a title change. 51.37.53.192 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify per WP:RAPID wizzito | say hello! 19:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For all they know, it was a homeless person who recognized them as they entered the house. This can be drafted until we have clearer details on what happened exactly. Oaktree b (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, it is clear that you have not read the sources. Nancy Pelosi was in Washington. The assailant broke through the glass doors at the back of the house at about 2:30 a.m. and was shouting "where's Nancy?" Plenty of details are available. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And there has been no examination of the person's state of mind/if they had a mental illness, or if they entered with intent to injure her. That's why it's best to draftify at this point, I think anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources, beyond headlines and bullet points, police haven't even formally responded yet. This is nothing we can build an article upon. You need GNG, not passing mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The San Francisco police chief has given a press conference hours ago. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can update the article with better sources, what we had at the time I commented was, well, not much of anything. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was there intent to harm her or was this another random break-in by someone that knew she lived there is my point. One case is more notable, the other isn't. Until we can establish that, the article should be incubated. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. The New York Times, the Washington Post and many other newspapers are devoting major coverage to this attack, and it is clear that the assailant was an election denier whose target was the Speaker of the House. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although you're probably right, "it is clear that (X)" is always a dangerous thing to say. If X is clear, you should be able to find a source to cite. DS (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is just one of many sources that describe his spreading of conspiracy theories including 2020 election denial, and shouting "Where's Nancy?" while engaging in extreme violence against her husband speaks for itself. Cullen328 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's OR, we have to wait until the authorities say what it is. "Dude says things online" isn't good enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, that is most definitely not original research. The CNN coverage is investigative reporting by a reliable source, and many other reliable sources are also reporting on the spreading of conspiracy theories by the accused. We are under zero obligation to "wait until the authorities say what it is." Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for "the authorities". The coverage of this attack has been massive and it easily meets the GNG. Cullen328 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok, we'll take the !vote and see what happens I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You want to meet GNG, you need sources, just because you say it's important, doesn't make it so. We need newspapers/magazines etc explaining what happened and why it's important, or the wiki gods will likely delete it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, the quantity of reliable sources now in the article is utterly irrelevant, especially for an article that is less than 24 hours old. What really matters is the reliable source coverage in the real world. A simple Google News search shows that multiple (dozens or hundreds) of reliable independent sources worldwide have devoted significant coverage to this attempted homicide of the husband of the Speaker of the House. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:RS are describing it as an attempted assassination of Nancy Pelosi. CJ-Moki (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article but the title should probably be changed until the assailant's motives have been confirmed. – Anne drew 19:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeinto Paul Pelosi. This is new and I think having an article is premature at this point. We have ample coverage at Paul’s page already. If this had involved Nancy I think it would be different perhaps, but that is not the case. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mergeinto Paul Pelosi. The short final paragraph on that page is sufficient to inform knowledgeably. Being a small part of that page means regularly updating minute-by-minute would not be appropriate. Having this page with fuller detail encourages/enables errors with misleading or misrepresented information. Wait for the facts before creating such pages. Wordwood (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An undeniably notable event, and an easy WP:GNG pass. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable event, but should probably be renamed to "Attack on Paul Pelosi" or something similar until we get more details that this was for sure an attempted murder of Nancy Pelosi. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also voting Keep, though maybe the title should be something like "Attack of/on the Pelosi residence"?
DecafPotato (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources are covering it as an assassination attempt. Sure, per WP:NOTNEWS we don't need to rush to get an article up about this, but per WP:RAPID we don't need to rush to delete one either, and it seems highly unlikely to me that an assassination attempt on the the US Speaker of the House isn't notable. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 19:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate in draft space Just because this was likely an assassination attempt does not mean that it's going to need its own page and this is just WP:TOOSOON for one. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per others. Plenty of sources. We're a wiki, no need to rush to delete. Feoffer (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can be re-evaluated in a year. But for now, reliable sourcing and definitely within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how notability works. But I think we will have to reevaluate this after the WP:RECENTISM fades. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Muboshgu, that kind of is how notability works. The nutshell at Wikipedia:Notability begins with "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". Articles involving recent events sometimes do get merged up or deleted later, even if it seems likely that they will be better off as a separate page at the beginning. We can make our best guess now, but we can also change our minds later, if that whole "over a period of time" thing doesn't seem to have panned out after all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Saying "it's notable now but we can reevaluate in a year" is counter to that. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article has been moved to Attack on Paul Pelosi. Cullen328 (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Very notable, and well referenced. Juneau Mike (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Boldly moved to Attack on Paul Pelosi, although WP:MURDERS suggests a better title is Assault on Paul Pelosi. However, this is a WP:BLP related article with judicial implications for the perpetrator, so may be WP:TOOSOON to decide a particular title. Leave at its latest title, for the moment, and revisit after the judicial processes take their course. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:SIGCOV--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:40FD:48DD:61E3:7466 (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Strong sources, notable, and timely. Will need some expansion as more information comes in but for now there's no reason to delete at all.--Zehaha (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This is an extremely notable event. 142.161.173.231 01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: There are other similar persons who attempted an assassination and have their own wikipage, such as Squeaky Fromme of Gerald Ford. This event is very notable, considering in light of the present political environment. Dinkytown talk 03:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies WP:SIGCOV. starship .paint (exalt) 03:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Unspectrogram (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2022 (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.