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[edit]

[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:TOOSOON for the most part. As of yet, there's no evidence of WP:LASTING coverage. Some day-of coverage in national press, and then only routine coverage in local press. This doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:NCRIME or WP:GEOSCOPE. In addition, the article is subject to WP:BLPCRIME and 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]

(edit conflict) ETA: If the one ref you just added is your magic bullet that this WP:NCRIME WP:NOTNEWS article isn't WP:TOOSOON and in fact has WP:LASTING significance, I'm unimpressed. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a very persuasive argument. The 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:DIVERSE coverage than that. Also, no critical 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:LASTING and 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 User:Pudeo/Wikipedia is not a thought police. 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 WP:NOTNEWS, tbh I’m not sure it passes WP:NCRIME anyway so WP:NOTNEWS might be overkill. 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:RAPID.Also 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:SIGCOV covered in press in BBC as well. 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:RAPID are passed. Also meets WP:RS. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer A summary here is that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E are unambiguously for removal while WP:RAPID and WP:SIGCOV support retention. There are more keep !votes, but this isn't a vote - so I'd ask when this is eventually closed, unless new arguments are brought forward, and regardless of which way the closer chooses to act, that they are clear about these four policies, how they interact and what should be considered when WP:BLP1E conflicts with WP:RAPID in a news-related article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply as its not "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities" also it meets WP:DIVERSE and hence WP:EVENTCRIT .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:NCRIME makes it pretty clear 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 Newsweek taking sides in thie ongoing discussion about the meaning of this incident: "Willem Van Spronsen—who some have pointed to as an example of the danger posed by Antifa—does not fit the terrorist mold. Van Spronsen was killed by Tacoma, WA police in mid-July while throwing home-brew incendiary devices at a parking lot full of unoccupied ICE vehicles near the Northwest Detention Center in the wee hours of the morning. If he intended to harm ICE personnel—or any other person—Van Spronsen could not have picked a less effective way to go about it. His choice of targets strongly suggests his aim was to sabotage ICE vehicles, presumably to hamper their ability to round up innocent people. Militant? Sure. Illegal? Absolutely. But not something most Americans would equate with terrorism in the everyday usage of the word. Antifa is responsible for a body count of exactly zero. If they're terrorists, they must be the least threatening terrorists ever to face the kind of sanctions that Cruz and Cassidy are proposing.". We KEEP articles when 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.