This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I closed very early due to WP:SNOW and per the precedent of Death of Michael Jackson. That was another article deleted then recreated rapidly. The advice at WP:EVENT (declaration: I wrote some of it) is to hold off on deletion nominations for such articles to give time to judge the event properly and soberly. With breaking news like this, the true notability and level of coverage changes rapidly as the debate proceeds making such debates very messy and generating more heat than light. Currently the content might not go much beyond Osama Bin Laden#Death, but a little redundancy isn't going to kill us and it doesn't take precognition to see that this event is going to rapidly gain more details and coverage. A merge could still be OK though I suspect it won't stick - that debate can go ahead on the talk page. Fences&Windows 03:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. The merge proposal with the other article is pretty good. As you can tell am a bit rusty in current consensus, but I thought this had to be done. Yeah, I got snowstormed ;) But I do not agree this is a closed case, the actual death is in itself an unremarkable event in the details. Unlike MJ's death that has generated legal consequenses etc. Pretty much this article will be a list of responses from figures, and maybe a MILHIST article (OPERATION OBL GET). Death of Bin Laden should be in the main article, that then links to it... --Cerejota (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see soon enough how to best handle the material, I suspect the details surrounding this event will rapidly become more than can comfortably fit into the main article. A better comparison than Michael Jackson would be Assassination of Benazir Bhutto, there's even a separate International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto article! Personally I view that level of detail as going overboard and mere quote-mining rather than article writing. Fences&Windows 04:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the quote farming; we had to CFORK the Mumbai attacks article heavily to be able to get it to GA, got me and my fellow heavy editors into the Annual Report and stuff. I do see a MILHIST angle emerging. The issue that makes it different from a regular assassination is that this was a military operation by a State, so it has a heavy MILHIST angle that an assassination by irregular forces doesn't. Lets see. Maybe when all the smoke clears, and this finally not being a BLP, we can get it organized.--Cerejota (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
other thread on OBL GET
hello. you comment ed on osama bin ladens death, i am correct? i am simply stateing my opinion peacefully, in my opinion this article is not 'premature'. in my peaceful opinion. please do not critisize, this is only my personal opinion. i have already been critizized twice by user:kansen and someone else, respectively. again, pleas do not critizize on me. thank you very much for letting me state my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.31.102 (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you can "peacefully give your opinion" but when responded equally peacefully it is "criticism"? I peacefully offer the opinion that you peacefully shouldn't expect everyone to agree with you just because your opinion is peaceful? I peacefully offer that it makes no peaceful sense, peacefully restrain yourself from giving peaceful opinions unless you are willing to see different peaceful opinions expressed.--Cerejota (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit and comments
Hello, I read your comment on my talk page. In case you don't see my response (cuz I know you probably get busy), this is what I wrote back.
hi. It's already a settled matter. Also, don't exaggerate please. Don't overly focus on the "Nazi" remark, to the exclusion of the majority of what I said in the edit comment. Most of what is in my comment WAS dealing with the "content" and "edit" and issue itself... Let's not get too thin-skinned either about passing hyperbole, said in half-jest. Anyway, it was a misunderstanding anyway. Anna and I are cool now. But thanks for your concern. Cheers. Art and Muscle (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cerejota/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
