Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Porcelainbee (talk | contribs) at 07:54, 10 June 2020 (Added a signature, which I did not understand how to add initially). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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]

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)[reply]

Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(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. SounderBruce 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 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. Passengerpigeon (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]
  • 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]
  • 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 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone&oldid=961759442"