Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

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 per WP:SKCRIT#1. (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 01:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:POVFORK of recently deleted article Assassination threats against Donald Trump. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those involved in prior discussion: Ethanbas, Primefac, Rhododendrites, SalemXIII, Montanabw, AusLondonder, Cwmhiraeth, Bondegezou, NinjaRobotPirate, Ɱ, BU_Rob13, Twitbookspacetube, DarjeelingTea, TonyBallioni, JFG, The Quixotic Potato, (Sandstein as closer) Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is not about a threat, it's about an assassination attempt for which a conviction was made. The subject matter has been the subject of a BBC documentary. How can an attempt to assassinate a presidential candidate not be significant enough to warrant an article? McPhail (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is considerable debate whether this is at all an attempt on his life — something that the court decision denied it was. This is not included in the article and the article fails both WP:NOTABILITY & especially WP:NOTNEWS (this garnered very little media attention apart from up to 48 hours after the event). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. Sandford himself has repeatedly admitted that his intent was to kill Trump. The attempt has received continual media coverage throughout, particularly in the UK press. The attempt was also the subject of a documentary that aired on BBC One, the UK's most watched channel. The sources provided in the article demonstrate the media coverage. McPhail (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Throroughly sourced article about a notable topic. Alansohn (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the article, except to note this is not a WP:G4-worthy recreation of Assassination threats against Donald Trump. That was about the (not actually existing, apparently) threats against Trump; this here is about a specific attempt rather than a threat. Sandstein 22:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, let's run it through the entire deletion review then. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Oppose - (note - pinged here by nom) I voted to Support Deletion at the "assassination threats" article (recently deleted), however, in this substantially revised version I oppose deletion. The incident received substantial coverage in RS and articles of this type have acceptable precedence as in attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, Attempted assassination of Harry S. Truman, Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento, Baltimore Plot, etc. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced and notable. However, we need to wait for multiple attempts before we can have the assasinations article. And it will happen sooner or later, the guy hit negative popularity in record time. Doubtless some plots are being cooked up as we speak! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of WP:CRYSTAL? Write about it when it happens. — JFG ^talk 10:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This was an admitted attempt on Trump's life by the perpetrator, whereas the previous article was a catch-all for various threats with little substance. This new article is detailed and well-sourced. — JFG ^talk 10:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article seems to have significance for a larger audience, is referenced properly, writing style seems ok. Zombalu (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite clearly not a POVFORK. The article is well-sourced and notable. It garnered considerably more coverage in the UK than the US because the perpetrator was a UK citizen so it's not true to say there was little media attention.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Properly sourced, notable event. -- Kndimov (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has received consistent coverage since it happened, enough so that the BBC aired a documentary on it six months later.LM2000 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources are good. notable event. plenty of coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2017 (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.