Talk:Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NomzEditingWikis (talk | contribs) at 02:24, 20 April 2024 (→‎Should not be deleted 2: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Should not be deleted

This immolation relates to the first criminal trial of a former president. I'd say that makes it worthy of being recorded and looked into. "Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell" as an article is still standing and I think that sets good precedent. 38.22.136.215 (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have many articles on Trump's various trials, but notability is not inherited. Why, according to sources, is this unfortunate event encyclopedically significant? Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more precise to say "this self-immolation is linked/related to the first criminal trial of a former president or incumbent president of the USA."
It really doesn't "relate" to the trial except insofar as the individual who set himself alight apparently wanted to make it so. Whether it is substantively related is a moot point. Presidential precedential, tomato tomato. But it is certainly related in both temporal and spatial measures (by virtue of happening at the same place and time as Trump's criminal trial).
Nevertheless, the event is clearly and undeniably notable. Wikipedia editors place a great deal of importance on the BBC as a "source". And at this very moment, this story is the BBC News Online service's leading article. It's also a leading news story on all other major international news channels at this moment in time (0100 GMT 20 April 2024). This event (or any event) can be notable without being significant, interesting, newsworthy, rational or consequential. For example, Wikipedia has articles on Flat Earth theories, despite these being insignificant, uninteresting, un-newsworthy, irrational and inconsequential. Let's give this barbeque fanatic the attention he craves. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted

This incident has been reported, at length, on TV news channels and elsewhere. The page already references these, and there will obviously be more. Regardless of Mr. Azzarello's notability before this incident, the incident seems to easily meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. tobych (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many events are covered in newspapers and similar, but Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Why, according to sources, is this unfortunate event encyclopedically significant? It isn't enough to have sources saying an event happened, we need to be able to provide context to readers for why it has lasting significance. Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely notable enough. It was a self-immolation in protest of a war that was widely covered by news sources NomzEditingWikis (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question, though. As I said above, WP:NOTINHERITED applies. This article isn't about the war, nor Trump's trial, nor about cryptocurrency ponzi schemes, not about "The Simpsons" - which are also things he was ostensibly protesting. Instead of trivializing this man's mental issues by recycling easy-to-google tid-bits, we need to use reliable sources to explain why this even was noteworthy. Grayfell (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of other Wikipedia readers/editors, would you please define "encyclopaedically significant" without using the words "encyclopaedia", "significant", or any derivates thereof? Thanks. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I will link to Wikipedia:Notability (events) and WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not the one who proposed deleting it and I'm not saying the article needs to be deleted. I'm saying that since we do not and cannot report every newsworthy event which happens, we need to use sources to provide context. Grayfell (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no shortage of sources - it's being reported on every major international news channel. And there is no shortage of context. The man who set fire to himself has made it crystal clear why he did so. Do you have a personal interest in suppressing this historical event @Grayfell? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can anyone, in particular you @Grayfell, tell Wikipedia's four-billion-monthly-users that a current event has (n.b. has, not "may have") "lasting significance"? Isn't that utterly illogical? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, opinions are mixed on how quickly we need to report on breaking news, but some events are more obviously significant than others. When in doubt, we use reliable, independent sources to decide, and all sources are judged in context. This means that we summarize what those sources are actually saying.
So again, I did not say this doesn't have lasting significance. I do not think the current article explains what this significance is or will be, or might be, or is likely to be etc... We cannot take this for granted just because it seems obvious, we need to use reliable sources to provide context. This is the same standard I use for any article. Grayfell (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this feels like a matter of improving the article, not deleting the article NomzEditingWikis (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]