Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:42, 10 June 2020

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

[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)

Contested PROD. A case of WP:TOOSOON and uncertain longevity, especially as "declared" communities are common parts of Seattle-area protests. Mainstream media has not made specific coverage of the subject, only making passing mentions. Sounder Bruce 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support The commune's article is notable and should stay. An article about a newly-founded "autonomous region of the US", which has multiple credible sources, should stay up despite how "soon" the article was written (the page doesn't even violate WP:TOOSOON). Sources, deemed as credible by Wikipedia, cited on the page talking about the notability of C.H.A.Z. include: The Seattle Times, The Daily Dot, and KIRO-FM local news (and at least two other Seattle-based local news websites) --Mt.FijiBoiz Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Seattle Times only mentions it in passing as part of greater protest coverage (Protesters, ACLU sue Seattle, blame mayor and police chief for ‘unnecessary violence’ at demonstrations), Daily Dot is a tech blog and not authoritative, the only mention from KIRO-FM is this live update thread (and their sister stations are not reliable sources). Given that this declaration came within the last 48 hours, it's not possible for a reliable book source to have been created, so don't try to count those. Sounder Bruce 04:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - SounderBruce, Fox News and RT are now covering it - https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-protesters-declare-cop-free-zone-after-police-leave-precinct and https://www.rt.com/usa/491347-seattle-autonomous-zone-police/ --Mt.FijiBoiz Mt.FijiBoiz (talk)
    - Per WP:RSPSOURCES, the longstanding community consensus is that RT is an unreliable and deprecated source. As for Fox News, it can be accurate but slanted, in this case trying to amplify coverage in a way that whips up fear among its base. Sounder Bruce 04:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I refreshed the page and saw the tag. There hasn't been any coverage yet, we will have to wait and see if this goes anywhere. Buffaboy ^talk 04:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not support, for the the reasons stated by Mt.FijiBoiz. CHAZ is a significant site and event in the US police abolition movement --DefaultFree (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not support, This looks like it's going somewhere, I'm not sure it's formatted correctly, as its more an ongoing event, but the national news will likely have this covered by tomorrow. I'd say wait and see. It think we are going to see a sharp rise in "support", and "criticism" in the main stream media so this will likely enter the political arena as a talking point, and I would anticipate "edit wars". Probably some Sr. Editors will be needed to sort this all out, and organize the article properly. (Should also add a note to why the Seattle Mayor lost the reelection, however that is a speculative future event, and not relevant.)Jzesbaugh (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support This is an ongoing development and is likely to last several days or longer. Given the numerous conflicting reports and coverage of protests across the United States, removing this article could potentially be seen as an endorsement of censorship. I recommend leaving the article unchanged for 2 weeks, or as a live 'change log' included on the article to account for continuing developments.

Keep or merge into an existing article about the George Floyd protests; even if the article may give it too much credibility as a "nation", the creation of the group is covered in multiple reliable sources. Passenger pigeon (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically where I landed, if deleted its just going to find its way back in some other form tomorrow, it's really starting to cycle on social media. The Cruz tweet, verified, is going to see to that.Jzesbaugh (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that there is enough media coverage to merit an article. Juno (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SPD has acknowledged it, giving legitimacy. https://twitter.com/jseattle/status/1270569577060032512 Pirate 05:23UTC 2020-06-09 —Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the link above is to a tweet alleging a statement that someone may have heard on a police scanner and does not meet our WP:RS standards. Chetsford (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tweet is from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog, which has been used as a source in several other Wikipedia articles. You can listen to a recording of the radio transmission in question with your own ears here ("SPD Dispatch East, 9:10:29 PM"). --DefaultFree (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMHZ doesn't meet our standards for WP:RS and conducting original audio analysis of walkie-talkie transmissions is WP:OR. Chetsford (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully acknowledge that OpenMHZ is original research, and I was posting that for your personal factual edification, not to meet notability standards. My point about CHS stands. --DefaultFree (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Recommend merging into overarching article(s) on protests. This is significant enough to merit a section header in a protest/George Floyd Protest article, but doesn't meet WP:N by itself and definitely fits the criteria for TooSoon. As an aside, I live literally blocks from here, and its a local joke. The 'signs' mentioned are cardboard signs and spray paint. It may merit it owns article in the future, should it actually be recognized by the city etc, but for now it's just a bunch of loud people on Twitter insisting that this is A Thing(tm). And its not. --IShadowed (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd err on the side of inclusion this time. The present moment doesn't feel like just another demonstration to me. The closest thing in memory is Occupy Wall Street, and the Occupy Seattle article still stands, and seems pretty good too. Groceryheist (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per MtFijiBoiz and Groceryheist's Keep votes. Geodude6 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Mentions in WP:RS are largely fleeting or incidental. No objection to the article being recreated if it receives significant, dedicated coverage in multiple major media outlets, or if the "Zone" still exists in a few months but it is very much WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TBH, this is kinda silly. I live in Seattle, and I have friends who live within the border stated in the article, and none of us had ever even HEARD of this until one of my overseas friends sent the article to us. This isn't a real thing. The precinct mentioned in the article on Capitol Hill isn't actually closed or abandoned, just has reduced numbers of police officers, and it wasn't ordered by the mayor at all, but by the police chief as a way to deescalate, as Cal Anderson Park is a starting point for a significant number of protests in Seattle (they start at Cal Anderson, which is next to the light rail and has easy access and large spaces to gather and head downtown, which is downhill, so relatively easy marching) and didn't want to have a significant police presence directly next to the start of protests. No one in Seattle would ever consider this a real thing. The article definitely should be deleted, or, at the very bare minimum, merged into an article about the protests in general and given very little mention. Jeancey (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 10 June 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewDunlap (talk • contribs) 06:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — NewDunlap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep 10 June 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.92.223.103 (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per MtFijiBoiz dh (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — DimethylHydra (talk • DimethylHydra) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep extensive reliable source coverage per Mt.FijiBoiz. Issan Sumisu (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per MtFijiBoiz Wjx987 (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even in the I guess somewhat likely event of the protest winding down/ the self declared "autonomous zone" being disbanded, this was still a significant development during the protests, and there are several sources covering it's existance, and in more detail. The argument that it is too soon because things like this are likely to be temporary doesn't hold water because A: even if it is not, it was still a notable event, and B: you can't see the future, you never know what this might become. As long as it has the proper citations in place here and now (and I think it does) there is no reason to delete it, and pushes to delete it may be politically motivated. Sarr Cat 07:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure about detail.... the RT source is the only one that really talks about it. In the other sources that even mention the name, it's mentioned once, and in each case it's mentioned as being among other signs. It's like someone googled "Capital Hill Autonomous Zone" and then used every result without reading what the articles actually said on the topic. There doesn't really seem to be any actual information about the zone (aside from RT which isn't really considered a reliable source). Jeancey (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, (Follow Up/Addendum) Watching this unfold through social media accounts. There may be some censorships issues here. I'd defiantly wait for more articles if they come to light. What I'm seeing is people sitting in the street watching a movie, supposedly in this area. These are social media links mostly. Why this may be notable is the stark contrast to the scenes of gassing and violence we have seen in confrontations with the police. The reason it might make more sense to consider for merging is that the contrast may be something to note. Again the issue here is how wide spread the coverage is.Jzesbaugh (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support as the establishment of the autonomous zone is a notable event with sufficient secondary reliable source coverage, not in violation of WP:TOOSOON. Bailmoney27 ^talk 07:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would question more the reliability of the establishment of the autonomous zone, rather than the sufficiency of the secondary coverage, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to support and actual official thing..... Jeancey (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - Does wikipedia actually care if something is real or not when it comes to articles? Plenty of fake things have articles on them, including fake things meant to be passed off as real things that they arent. Thats not reason for speedy deletion; that is reason to edit the article with sourced information that asserts this is fake. Such as how the PragerU page specifically mentions that they arent a University and just wanna look like one or more evidently... See the wikipedia page for Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. Ya wanna claim this isnt going on and is a big hoax by twitterers and facebookers? Find the sources to prove your claim and edit the article; dont delete it.75.164.70.117 (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does wikipedia actually care if something is real or not when it comes to articles? - Not in the way you mean, no. My cat is real but it doesn't get a WP article. The mere existence of a thing doesn't qualify it for a WP article. Please see WP:N. Chetsford (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not support - Flawed AFD. WP:TOOSOON is not a deletion policy. Also, "mainstream media" is an illegitimate benchmark for WP:RS or WP:V. Also, the statement that mainstream media hasn't covered it (assuming that was a valid deletion reason) is just false: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 07:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support This is very important, its good thing people can look it up whenever, it shouldnt be forgotten Hanadrizz (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - existing primarily as a form of protest, pulling it off to be a separate article is at this point unneeded - attach it to an appropriate article and only split in line with SPINOFF or, if it does turn out to be a more distinct body that exists after the protests end, then that would also warrant it. I'm also concerned by a veritable avalanche of SPAs, plus a number of completely non-policy arguments above Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and expand to include content about "Occupation of the East Precinct" CHAZ is two days old. It is, in my view, probably Too Soon here - I'm not sure accurate RS's exist here, given how young CHAZ is.

However, the broader set of battles over the East Precinct are *unquestionably* notable. There was a near shooting there, several uses of tear gas, and outrage that will almost certainly bring and end to SPD's right to use tear gas, given how much it's impacted surrounding communities. I'm sure plenty of RS exist talking about the broader occupation.

If CHAZ makes it through the week, it will probably be worth revisiting the question of the name of the article, and we can have more accurate and in-depth information in RS.

For now, I think it's hard to argue that it's not too soon in re: CHAZ. Cam94509 (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any occupation of the precinct, and from what I can tell this has been declared by protesters occupying tents in the park, and not the permanent residents for the two blocks (and only two residential buildings) that is contained within the zone. Is there a reliable source attesting to the authority of the protesters to declare an autonomous zone over an area they don't actually live in? If I declare an autonomous zone over the entirety of Berlin, would I qualify for a page because I tweeted about it and a live blog of protests included that tweet? That's all that seems to have happened here. There was a tweet showing graffiti saying "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" and some live blogs of Seattle protests had tweets regarding this.... The protesters are also demanding the budget of the police be cut. This doesn't seem to conform with a declaration of an autonomous zone, since if they are no longer part of Seattle they have no reason to demand a budget lowered... they aren't part of it. This seems, logically, to imply that this zone isn't actually a real thing and is just a talking point, since they are still acting as a part of Seattle. Jeancey (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; you cud make such an article if ya did that and got it spread enough to get picked up by various local Berlin news stations and the like. Someone wud then come along and show that the claim of an AZ is false (using sources; not their own experiences) and edit such info into the article so that everyone reading the article about Jeancey's Autonomous Zone & Zoo in Berlin (JAZZ in Berlin) is well aware of all the information about JAZZ in Berlin's potential lack of validity as well as the claims that it exists. And then the people will know the facts and be able to come to a conclusion about whether existence of the JAZZ in Berlin is a hoax or not.75.164.70.117 (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even a long-standing anarchist-ridden place like Exarcheia is stated as a "commune", even if there the situation has always been even more critical. Fairly silly to consider this new teenager thing as a "commune". Delete it and write a paragraph into the "Capitol Hill (Seattle)" page. EntroDipintaGabbia (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6800:8CC0:7548:CDC9:4012:AD71 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It’s important that this page stays up as things develop on the ground. Even when the CHAZ is inevitably reoccupied by the US, this page should stay up for posterity. Sources will be added later but for now, information is constantly coming in from all over and is difficult to organize. 166.182.80.71 (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Autonomous Zone is, regardless of political persuasion, an extremely unique product of the 2020 US protests against police brutality and systemic racism. It deserves to be preserved on Wikipedia as an instance of a police force (presumably temporarily) abandoning a core section of a major city, and an ad hoc community forming in their absence. Porcelainbee (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Porcelainbee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per the source in the article and those listed above by User:KeithTyler. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: please consider moving to draft if the consensus is for delete, hopefully some of these eager editors can work on it there. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per the sources listed above; this is a notable development and should be documented. JiYongChaos (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been significant media attention on this area to be considered a notable development. While some of the information in the article may be questionable, the event itself is legitimate, important, and unique. While this may not be an autonomous zone by definition, it has been called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, and thus the title should stay as well. (anon) 4:01, 10 June 2020 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.67.223.98 (talk)

Keep. Per @PorcelainBee:. ProletariatetsBefrielseOrkester (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lot of people are talking about this, and there are credible sources something is happening there. --Boklm (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now or Merge if no further developments. IMO, WP:TOOSOON does not apply here as there are other secondary sources, but its notability as a AZ could be brought into question if it doesn't survive the week.

Revision as of 12:37, 10 June 2020 edit DefaultFree (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,198 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:42, 10 June 2020 edit undo Teh.cmn (talk \| contribs) 184 edits →‎Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Next edit →
Line 98:		Line 98:

	* '''Keep'''. A lot of people are talking about this, and there are credible sources something is happening there. --[[User:Boklm\|Boklm]] ([[User talk:Boklm\|talk]]) 12:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)		* '''Keep'''. A lot of people are talking about this, and there are credible sources something is happening there. --[[User:Boklm\|Boklm]] ([[User talk:Boklm\|talk]]) 12:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

			* '''Keep''' for now or '''Merge''' if no further developments. IMO, WP:TOOSOON does not apply here as there are other secondary sources, but its notability as a AZ could be brought into question if it doesn't survive the week.