Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Matthew Crooks

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 45.44.122.106 (talk) at 16:28, 14 July 2024 (→‎Thomas Matthew Crooks: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thomas Matthew Crooks

[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]
  • Keep BLP1E third condition not met: event is significant, and significant enough role and increasingly well documented. Widefox; talk 12:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS only applies if the other stuff also shouldn't exist. I'm still waiting for an argument as to why we should carve out a special exception for this person as opposed to other presidential assassins-manque (or presidential candidates, see Arthur Bremer). If you want to also delete and the other articles in Category:American failed assassins make that argument. Herostratus (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still waiting for an argument as to why we should carve out a special exception for this person...
    Arguments could be made along the lines that
    • He didn't survive and will not go through a "trial of the decade" like Hinckley or Schrank did. There will be no future appearances from Crook.
    • He wasn't assassinated by someone associated with the mob like Oswald was.
    • He's 21 and is unlikely to have a notable past.
    Unless it turns out he was in the pay of someone to shoot Trump to make way for a more moderate/hardline nominee (pick your conspiracy) then there's not a lot aside from "21year old shoots at former President", which is inevitably going to leave a stub article where the citations outnumber the words. But per WP:LAGGING, we ain't there yet on demonstrating some more notable background/context. Hemmers (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but we should re-evaluate when more information comes out about him Personisinsterest (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When it comes to the notability issue, articles about him are popping up quick. No one gets famous instantly, rather overnight. Still, being the person who tried to assassinate a former US president would make him notable by action alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rektz (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: This is WP:TOOSOON, we have little information about the shooter himself. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:01, 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. Did the nominator even read BLP1E? The specific example used in point three is almost an exact parallel. An assassination attempt on a (former) president.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator, At the moment, we have too little amount of information on the gunman but I doubt anything will come out that will make us reconsider our decision. He didn't even see his 21st birthday and the only notable thing he did was shoot the former president in the ear. Besides, it's also WAY too soon to create a page on the perpetrator of a shooting that happened 15 hours ago. - MountainJew6150 (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is precedence for creating article like this one and this event has triggered a substantial media response. Maurnxiao (talk) 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. As others have already noted, all three prongs must be met to meet the deletion criteria under WP:BLP1E, and Crooks clearly does not meet prong three. A person carrying out a serious US presidential assassination attempt is literally the example they give of why someone would not meet prong three. Wikipedialuva (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator as suggested. All that there is to say and all that there likely ever will be to say about this person in an encyclopedic context is already said, with more appropriate weight and better sources, in the two small paragraphs in the assassination article. The other presidential assassins that keep getting referenced here were for the most part somewhat notable for things they did prior to their attempts, and all of them survived and went on to attract significant media attention throughout their trials and subsequent lives. Crooks was barely out of high school when he was shot dead - he didn't evidently do anything noteworthy in his short life leading up to his attempt for the media to obsess about, there won't be media attention for a subsequent trial, he won't be interviewed from his prison cell, there won't be a media circus every time he's up for parole, and so on. What we have now is a pseudo-biography of a person notable for a single event. If more information does come up later to support more than a pseudo-bio that summarizes this person's entire life with "he was born then he shot Trump", we can revisit an article at that time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s like saying ‘all that can be invented, has been invented. So let's close the US Patent Office!’. It has been less than 24-hours since the event and you’re ready to close this chapter without additional discovery. Your short sightedness has clouded your judgement. 2A02:8070:48B:B800:A16D:B21D:C914:DEE (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRYSTAL. And watch the personal attacks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - WP:BIO1E specifically states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Baltarstar (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This will definitely not be the Princip of our times. 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. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thomas Matthew Crooks is now extremely notable, and has received national coverage for attempting to assassinate Donald Trump. JohnAdams1800
  • Keep. WP:BIO1E doesn't prohibit this article, it even specifically states: "On the other hand, if a significant event is of rare importance, even relatively minor participants may warrant their own articles." This event meets those criteria, and Crooks is a major participant. -- Falcorian (talk) 13:38, 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. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. This matches the the attempted assignation of Reagan, which meets the criteria. -- Falcorian (talk) 14:00, 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]
  • Keep - Whether we like it or not, Thomas Matthew Crooks belongs to American history by his deed; the page opened in his name will be expanded as serious, sourced information becomes available; keeping this page open avoids the scattering of these additional details to come in subsections of other pages that would talk about Thomas Matthew Crooks. Golffies (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thomas Matthew Crooks Has Public Interest and Potential for Expansion: He is of public interest and has the potential for expansion. Even if the article is currently a stub, it can serve as a starting point for further research and development by the Wikipedia community. He is genuinely interesting to the public, it deserves a place on the platform.
  • Keep Robotje duly referenced the Wikipedia rule "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." Self explanatory.
  • Keep - This individual attempted to assassinate a former President. Whether we like that former President or not, this is a historic event in American history which just took place. John Hinkley attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan and there is a Wikipedia page for him. There is precedent for having Wikipedia pages for even failed presidential assassins. I imagine we will learn even more about this shooter which means there will be opportunities to expand the page. --LasVegasGirl93 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    John Hinkley survived the attempt and went on to have a trial. Compare the two articles. If more comes out about the shooter then we can create the page then, however, the existing article is nothing more than a stub and has no additional information outside of what's already mentioned on the assassination attempt article. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Does not necessarily meet BLP1E; as I don't believe the anything is known about the motive or the subject at this time. Since the perp didn't survive, there will likely be little to write about and article will remain a stub. role was both substantial and well documented per WP:BLP1E] as the example there specifically cites the attempted assassinator of Reagan. If more comes out later, article can always be created and expanded. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per WP:NSUSTAINED: If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. Hypnôs (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly because a Redirect would only last briefly, if at all, as all other assassins, and would be assassins, have their own article. Having said that, this article should be brief and not turned into a veiled attempt to entertain partisan interests of any kind. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:42, 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 he is going to become the subject of intense mass analysis of him specifically, information that won't necessarily be wholly relevant to the page for the assassination attempt itself Claire 26 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The wounding of a former United States President and current candidate is significant, and his actions will no doubt impact discourse surrounding political violence in the United States, as well as the election itself. Arthur Bremer got his own Wikipedia article, so I feel this is worthy. 21stCenturyCynic (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no way that this isn't going to be documented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable, for being one of a few people attempting or having killed a US president. We've got global coverage at this point, which I'm sure will be discussed and expanded in the near future. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 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]
  • Keep: At least until the tag for involvement in a current event is removed when the time comes; while this is still unfolding, it’s a little hard to tell the degree to which this man is notable for his role in the event. I regard it as a little premature to make a decision about deletion now. Hydroxyzine-XYZ (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being, then (probably) redirect. The perpetrator will not do any more notable things; this much is certain. In articles on criminals who are non-notable except for the crime they committed, Wikipedia has no universal standard; Robert Pickton is an article, but "Alek Minassian" redirects to 2018 Toronto van attack, despite both Pickton and Minassian being non-notable beyond their crimes. A criminal investigation that will determine TMC's motive, and whether there is anything notable in his biography beyond the assassination attempt is underway, but at present, we do not know the results, or the contents of his computer, or if he wrote a diary and what it contains, or his social-media handles and activities, etc. All of these may or may not become notable as the investigation proceeds. Present publicly-available information is, I think, a clear argument for a merge/redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator, but this information is only preliminary.
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]
Keep: We have an article for Lee Harvey Oswald and John Hinckley Jr. — the argument for keeping is strong. Mutspelli (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easy GNG pass for bio of a chief actor in a historic event. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now to the article about the assassination attempt. I agree with Ivanvector's points that unlike most/all of the other articles about attempted assasins being cited by others in this discussion, Crooks is both dead (precluding further appearances in the public eye) and was very young (unlikely to have accomplished anything else notable) so there is not likely not going to be a lot of further coverage about him beyond his role of pulling the trigger. What little information that is available now is coming out in crumbs and could be served by a section in the main article. Once the dust settles and the investigation is completed, this can be revisited to see if Crooks meets WP:BIO1E. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. We do not have much about the person to validate its own article, just this one event. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator. Obvious BLP1E. There's some WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS regarding John Hinckley Jr and John Schrank. I consider those different because they survived and were tried - meaning there is a deal of independent coverage about the trials and aftermath, which is derived from the assassination attempt but separate and establishes notability. Likewise, Lee Harvey Oswald survived, was arrested and then assassinated himself by Ruby, who was associated with the mob, which spawned some highly developed conspiracy theories. By contrast, it seems unlikely that there is going to be a great deal of coverage about Crooks that is not directly related to the shooting (so per WP:LAGGING he should be a section of the main article until there's enough to be worth splitting out). Unless it turns out there was some wild conspiracy and he was in the pay of someone to shoot Trump in favour of a different nominee or something similarly out there (I'm sure QAnon have something cooking up, but we need not concern ourselves with that on WP). As it stands, comparable cases might include the attempted kidnapper of Princess Anne, or the perpetrators of the UK's worst mass shooting) or the 2023 Nashville school shooting who do not have their own articles. Just because someone did a bad thing and it's in the news doesn't make them notable. None of the UK's mass shooters have their own articles - it requires something additional like Oswald's shooting or a post-shooting trial.Hemmers (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even if there isn’t enough info on him yet for it to be notable, we will naturally get more and more, deleting it and then having to bring it back when more info comes is unnecessary
KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP does not apply as per Point 3. 45.44.122.106 (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Matthew_Crooks&oldid=1234485850"