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. WP:SNOW close. Overwhelming consensus for keep, backed by strong policy-based arguments. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closing note: - I have struck the part of the close referring to a speedy keep - that was an error on my part. It is not a speedy keep, but a WP:SNOW close and keep per WP:SK#NOT. Mea culpa —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Matthew Crooks

[edit]

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

Thomas Matthew Crooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be pretty obvious WP:BLP1E; should be redirect to Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Perpetrator ―Howard • 🌽33 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Even though there's articles that are the subject of people who attempted to assassinate/assinate a U.S. president, it doesn't mean that Crooks should have an article. It's based on notability established from sources, and it doesn't seem like it. ~ Tails Wx 12:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain your reasoning for not considering existing coverage to be sufficient? Articles dedicated solely to Thomas Matthew Crooks have been published by the BBC, Reuters, CNN, CBC, New York Times, Sky News, The Telegraph, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, and many more. Many of these articles are not simply reporting on his identification as the shooter, but on the man himself: his background, political beliefs, motivation, childhood, etc. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a bit off topic, however, hurricanes may covered by dozens to hundreds of sources depending on their lifespan but still not get articles because they werent notable. ✶Quxyz✶ 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously believe that the man responsible for the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, in one of the most consequential elections of our lifetime, isn't a notable person? Let more coverage about his background come out before deciding to nuke the entire article, this should be common sense. 185.209.199.91 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joriki (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect – this is WP:TOOSOON and a bunch of other policy violations. Redirect to attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator until it’s time to create article. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changine to strong redirect under same reasoning above. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a good amount of information. The event was very notable. Not much of background yet though. The article will likely continue to grow. Cwater1 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Manifestly notable, doesn't meet all deletion criteria as proposed. Killuminator (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, as the third condition of WP:BLP1E is clearly not met. It states: "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." The event is 1) significant and 2) Crooks' role is both substantial and well documented (as demonstrated by the significant coverage already dedicated to Crooks; the BBC, Reuters, NYT, CNN, CBC, Telegraph, Guardian, etc. have all published articles on Crooks, and we will inevitably see further and more detailed coverage over time). GhostOfNoMeme 13:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is too early to consider this attack as an example of such an event, we will see that only when we assess the impact of this attack on the campaign. This criterion applies to the Kennedy assassination or the sinking of the Titanic, events about which many books have been written. The perpetrator of the 2023 Nashville school shooting also received a lot of media attention immediately following the attack, but ultimately proved to be unworthy of a separate article. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the attempted assassination of a former US president and current US presidential candidate is eminently a significant event. WP:BLP1E uses the example of the Reagan assassination attempt, not Kennedy's assassination. Clearly, such events are significant in and of themselves. I don't believe we need to wait for books to be written to establish this event as plainly significant on the face of it. GhostOfNoMeme 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the fact that Hinckley didn't kill Reagan, he's also an interesting case for forensic psychiatry, and he's still alive today. Crooks won't do anything interesting again, maybe he'll go down in pop culture, but it's too early for that now. If Trump had died or Crooks had survived, the notability of this person would be beyond dispute, but as it is, this biography does not provide it. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator Davi.xyz (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Numerous other people have stated that it should be kept for not meeting the third prong of WP:BLP1E, and I agree. However, it might need to be protected because of general sanctions about post-‘92 us politics, but i am not 100% sure 24.115.255.37 (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep - why deleting? this can be a helpful article that can help people who are interested and want to know more about who the perpetrator was. Barakeldad (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Better for context to keep the limited amount of information currently available in one article Mrfoogles (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No clear guideline exists for such cases, but for practical reasons, I think it is better than to keep the articles separate until they are approaching stability, and then decide for a merger (if TMC is indeed non-notable beyond the assassination attempt) or against it (if TMC turns out to be "more than he seems"): Merging will require the TMC article's content to be condensed, and in the case of a re-splitting, this discarded information would need to be restored and re-vetted, which is cumbersome.
Also, both articles are liable to be targets of vandalism, edit-wars etc, but in different ways: Attempted assassination of Donald Trump will have a lot of legit information upcoming (to be handled on a per-request basis if the article is protected) but also a lot of opinionated content from non-notable sources; the choice of weapon alone is bound to cause a lot of debate. It thus mainly requires notability-checking. Whereas Thomas Matthew Crooks will have one or very few sources of legit information (the official investigation, as well as maybe some OSINT work) but is liable to be swamped by non-verifiable "facts" that are likely perpetuated by sources that are formally "reliable" (looking at you, New York Post). It thus mainly requires verification-checking. Keeping the articles separate for the time being, rather than having one article that is affected by these two different problems/challenges, will keep these editing/maintenance problems and resultant workload to a minimum, until enough information is available to achieve a broad consensus on how to deal with this case. Dysmorodrepanis2 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we will naturally get more and more
Will we? Naturally the press will regurgitate the same basic facts - 21year old from Butler, won an award, shot at the former President. And yes, we can add those increasingly repetitive citations to the article, even though half of them will be opening "as reported by <the other outlet>". The presumption that any novel and notable material will emerge to justify a separate article is just that - presumptuous. And per WP:LAGGING, we don't deal in presumption. Hemmers (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2024 (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.
Category