Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:34, 20 April 2024

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello

[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)

Not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the deep reasoning you presented. -A876 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring forward to this page the pre-existing discussion relating to deletion of this article from the article's talk page. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello -A876 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They would be aware of this discussion. SWinxy (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is/are "they"? Can't you communicate more precisely? Whoever you mean by "they", are you saying there is no value in this ancestor page explicitly referencing previous discussion? Is it better to expect editors to find prior discussion for themselves (or not) instead of expending a few mouse clicks to put prior discussion in front of them? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A plausible target for merging would be Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Self-immolation. SWinxy (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But is the immolation really a "reaction"? I thought the trial merely provided a highly visible venue with numerous television reporters present. Is there some other connection? You can reach and say that both subjects are attention-seeking paranoids complaining of conspiracies and unjust persecution by parties including past and present U.S. presidents, but the particulars of the alleged conspiracies seem sufficiently different. Anyway, Agree, not notable 97.102.205.224 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep. You may be correct in saying that the self-immolation isn't a valid or rational or something-else reaction to Trump's criminal trial - fair enough - but how does that make it "not notable" in itself? Clue - it does not. This discussion is about wiping the self-immolation out of (Wikipedia) history: it is *not* about whether or not it is a valid/meaningful/rational *reaction* to any trial. That is a notion introduced after the event by @SWinxy. You have sadly and blatantly been led by Swinxy and you have conflated two objectively unrelated things leading you to "agree" that Azzarello's impromptu cook-out is "not notable". Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flusapochterasumesch: To clarify, I wasn't trying to conflate the issues, I just thought the fact it wasn't a reaction was a bit non-obvious and so justified a response. The non-notability seemed so obvious to me I didn't think any detailed justification was required, so I just said "yes, of course @ElijahPepe is right." I did not mean (but wasn't clear in my writing, sorry) to imply that the long rationale justified my agreement.

The reason I think it's obviously non-notable is Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The incident is shocking enough to have received a burst of attention, but it seems obvious it won't be WP:SUSTAINED#SUSTAINED, won't be important history, and thus will fail the notability requirement. Full discussion of what it takes to make a single event notable at Wikipedia:Notability (events).

“

Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

”

clearly applies here. If there are grounds for "additional enduring significance", please specify; I can't see any. This is one case where the disconnectedness is relevant. If the immolation were indicative of the public's depth of feeling about Trump's trial, it would be relevant to that larger, notable, issue. But someone photobombing the reporters in a particularly gruesome way has to be independently notable. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It read to me like Azzarello chose the location to grab publicity, not as a "reaction" or protest for or against the proceeding or defendant. -A876 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Self-immolation or to List of political self-immolations. The sources aren't there for this article. However... maybe best to wait a week or two before nominating for deletion, as notability at that point tends to be a bit clearer for events like this. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I'm biased since I created the article about Aaron Bushnell but I already see enough news about this incident that I think it will warrant an article. That being said, only time will tell. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been covered by multiple reliable sources and was not a reaction to the trial itself.

MountainDew20 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait/Keep - the incident is beginning to gain notability and sources are coming out [1][2][3][4][5] Wafflefrites (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As MountainDew20 stated, the event has been covered by multiple reliable sources and is gaining notability. MemeGod ._. (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From the sources I've read, Azzarello seems to have had a complex political motivation behind his actions that went beyond merely reacting to Trump's trial. Only time will tell, of course, but it's a reasonable assumption that this incident will continue to be notable enough to deserve it's own article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I've read, I feel it's safe to say that Azzarello's motivations were indeed complex; however, the extent to which they were political is open for debate. Mental illness is tragic. DS (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying but politics and mental illness are not mutually exclusive topics, and both of them are complex. 208.38.225.32 (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York or List of political self-immolations. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and an event is not notable simply because it happened and was reported on in the news. An event's notability is also not affected by whether it happens in relation to an actually notable event (such as the Trump trial) or simply because it feels "significant". Create the article when there's sustained coverage beyond standard news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Absurd to propose this being deleted wholesale when it's undeniably internationally notable.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a clear case of WP:RAPID. Literally only 1 day has passed since the event. Not even the initial news coverage has passed, and we're talking about lasting notability that can't really be proven until at least a few weeks later. 106.71.58.30 (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since no actual rationale for deletion was given. Cortador (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or more likely reassess in 7 days. Notability is unclear at this point. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a rare media case where graphic detail was caught in real time. I have also seen criticism in how security was handled around the scene. But most of all, this appears to have WP:DEPTH especially how the NYT went into detail about Maxwell's life. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 *'''Keep''' since no actual rationale for deletion was given. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 06:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Draftify''' or more likely '''reassess''' in 7 days. Notability is unclear at this point. [[User:Esolo5002|Esolo5002]] ([[User talk:Esolo5002|talk]]) 07:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
+*'''Keep'''. This is a rare media case where graphic detail was caught in real time. I have also seen criticism in how security was handled around the scene. But most of all, this appears to have [[WP:DEPTH]] especially how the NYT went into detail about Maxwell's life. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 07:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)