Deletion of 2010 Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis

Comment: per . This story was barely a blip on the radar and has no lasting cultural significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to Discovery Communications.  It doesn't seem to me as significant enough to have its own article at this time.  |We can always split it off again
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:There is no deadline (WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: per the above. Fails . Runs afoul of , , and 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTS||WP:BREAKING||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RECENT)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS, .  This knee-jerk "write about it NOW" mindset is getting irritating
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: I'm on the fence and I am only slightly leaning toward keep.  I think  applies here, but I think there is significance in the motivations of the attack and also in the social media aspect.  Perhaps a better article would be on James Lee or as said above to merge this article with Discovery Channel.--v/r
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Per  which states "''The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERPETRATOR)

Comment: per /CA. A crime ''is'' confirmed to have occurred (obviously), and worldwide media coveragehttp://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/55844/hostage-drama-ends-at-discovery-buildinghttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11159256http://www.euronews.net/2010/09/01/one-man-taken-hostage-at-discovery-channel/http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_police-end-hostage-drama-at-us-discovery-channel_1432297http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/discovery-gunman-shot-by-police-3-hostages-safe confers notability. Are people really suggesting that the fact that the hostages were rescued makes it ''less'' notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: First, could /CA be any less helpful of a guideline?  My personal yardstick for these incidents is that if only the perp died, then it's not going to be notable—it will fade from the public memory in due time.  Though the perp's history with Discovery makes for a more interesting story, I don't think that the story will get legs.  See, I just naturally called "it" a "story", not an "event" or "shooting" or anything
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: to Discovery Communications, unless we're changing the name at the top left of my page to Wikinews. This was a three-hour chunk of the news cycle, and that's it. Xoloz above says it will have 'scholarly interest' - well, considering any coverage has already devolved to "what a weirdo" and that's about it, I doubt it's going to be in any textbooks anytime soon.  people
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: All over the news yesterday and numerous stories on it so I fail to see how it's 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Meets |Notability criteria.--Special:Contributions/74.132.52.23|74.132.52.23
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: to Discovery Communications per , .--Special:Contributions/74.57.5.235|74.57.5.235
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EFFECT)

Comment: I can't bring myself to make a call either way, but I think this is another case highlighting the dire need to overhaul  to be more explicit about what it's actually supposed to mean, since it keeps serving such a major role in AFD discussions with people using it to support opposing views. Is it intended to rule out "most newsworthy events", or is it intended to rule out "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities"? Seeing the same guideline applied over and over with such inconsistent outcomes is just tiresome
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Meets |Notability criteria. Special:Contributions/64.89.89.238|64.89.89.238
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Once again I'm forced to point out that "in the news" is not the same thing as "falling under |NOTNEWS
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)