Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Tacoma attack

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. Sandstein 17:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Tacoma attack

[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)

WP:BLP requirements as the principal subject is recently deceased. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Flatly untrue nominating statement. In fact, news coverage has been ongoing in local and national sources. The
Washington Post has another story up today - not a wire service story, a reported story. As does the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. And that's just soe of what is published today alone.A.Jacobin (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Would you care to provide evidence of this? Because the only Washington Post article I saw was a day-of piece of coverage. In addition, it's worth noting that I asked A.Jacobin for evidence of just such sources for two days prior to filing this AfD and they were unable to provide them. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read
WP:BEFORE. A.Jacobin (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

(
WP:LASTING significance, I'm unimpressed. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Washington Post does not send reporters to write follow-up stories about minor crimes in Washington state. I have added multiple reliable sources, published since the initial wave of coverage, and will continue to add more. A.Jacobin (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep broad coverage: The New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, The Guardian, USA Today. You can't get much more
WP:BLPCRIME concerns because the suspected perpetrator is named in these reliable soures. --Pudeo (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment NYT - July 13. Washington Post - July 13. BBC - July 14. Guardian - July 14. USA Today - July 13. Every bit of national or international coverage was day of or the following day. No follow-through. Thus
WP:TOOSOON - let's see if anybody cares outside Washington on August 1 and then maybe there's a case for an article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:BLP1E wholly applies, unless one can expand significantly on Van Spronsen's biography, which doesn't seem likely. --Masem (t) 14:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll also add this is exactly what
WP:NOT#NEWS tells us not to include. A local event by a nobody with no other injuries beyond the killing of the perp, and with clearly no lasting impact. We do not cover every local crime that happens to catch attention upstream, unless it as a clearly long tail of news. --Masem (t) 14:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
This is connected to the recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement#Criticisms. As the New York Times wrote: The episode happened the morning after Vice President Mike Pence visited migrant detention centers in Texas, and thousands attended “Lights for Liberty” demonstrations. More than 700 were planned in hundreds of cities around the country, including at the Tacoma center. The episode happened one day before ICE is scheduled to arrest thousands of members of undocumented families. --Pudeo (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. As the guy's dead and we can't figure out his motives, its completely guesswork if the attack was meant to be related to the proposed ICE arrests. It's likely possible, but its absolute guesswork. --Masem (t) 16:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big fan of using the Buzzfeed as source, but they have done a piece on his manifesto: [1] In any case it was not a run-off-the-mill local crime, as evidenced by broad national coverage. --Pudeo (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Get off your soapbox Pudeo, always remember that
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect (also ok with Keep if it swings that way) - belongs in Antifa (United States) ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what reliable source? Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For starters: WaPo,Buzz Feed News, News.com.au, Fox News, Business Insider ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an argument for keeping the article, and mention at Antifa, rather than a forc3 choice between them. Qwirkle (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that, too, Qwirkle. I simply prefer to avoid potential claims of WP:POV fork. I'm of the mind that this incident, the Ngo incident and a timeline of other violence & destruction belongs in a separate section in Antifa (United States). I will also add that the source I used in this example, TDW, is arguably a RS, but partisan and to use with caution (like all clickbait news sources). In this case, the timeline is verifiable and cited to CNN, WaPo and others (that may also be partisan and take things out of context) - so it's important to comply with WP:NEWSORG and we should be fine. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pudeo 80.111.42.123 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced article on incident drawing national attention and coverage.A.Jacobin (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Solid sourcing, continued coverage, implications beyond mere local common crime. No reasons to delete beyond the obvious bad ones. Qwirkle (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good sourcing, national and international coverage. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) 69.197.76.99 (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes
WP:NCRIME as there has been significant news coverage on a large scale. Article is well cited with reliable sources. Highway 89 (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Appears to be one event by the person, lacking enduring historical significance, and a routine news event considering no one but the protester was injured. It certainly hit the news for a day as anything related to ICE detention centers is news at this moment. But will we remember him tomorrow? Doesn’t get close to
WP:10YT, and doesn’t even belong in the antifa article as there is no actual evidence of any relationship to antifa. O3000 (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:RAPID. Widely covered, on-going national level coverage - e.g. WaPo on 19 July. Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Draftify first choice, Keep second choice. It wouldn't hurt to see if there is any ongoing coverage of this before having an article, but it is well enough cited that I don't see a reason (at least not given on this page) to delete it. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet
WP:DIVERSE and as numerous international sources wrote about the attack for example BBC [2] --Shrike (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:NTEMP Once notable-always notable Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I sympathize with the argument that this is too soon, but the coverage is national, ongoing, and arguably can be connected to larger social developments using statements by journalists. OhioShmyo (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The principles of
WP:RS. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment to closer A summary here is that
WP:RAPID in a news-related article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:BLP1E doesn't apply either as the article is not about subject but about the event --Shrike (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NOTNEWS can apply to a crime. Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, from
WP:EVENTCRIT Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. (added emphasis mine) Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
But I will say thank you for reminding me where to find that policy. I'd been looking for the correct link everywhere since I started this AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E applies because it is about the person. Nothing actually happened in the event other than the death of the person. O3000 (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"nothing" happened except that an antifa activist who had previously been arrested for physical violence against officers of the law during political protests wrote a remarkable manifesto and, armed with an assault rifle and firebombs, attempted to set fire to a government facility. Incidents like this are kept because, unlike ordinary crimes, they continue to be discussed well after they occurred.A.Jacobin (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today: we had an op-ed in
WP:SIGCOV is ongoing (I created this page).A.Jacobin (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2019 (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.