The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The "delete" arguments are less numerous and weaker. The "delete" side argues that this was not an actual or serious assassination attempt. That may or may not be so, but it is not relevant for inclusion according to our policies and guidelines for articles about events. These rules are based on the amount, quality of an event's coverage in reliable sources, and its lasting importance. While there may well be arguments against keeping the article on these grounds, the "delete" side by and large does not make them. They also allege BLP problems, but these seem to be largely an issue of the title accusing the man concerned of attempted assassination, of which he was not in fact convicted. This can be remedied by renaming the article, and deletion is not required to resolve this problem. Sandstein 19:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Mention of this was recently removed from
Donald Trump. While there is media coverage, this doesn't appear to be a serious act and politicians are constantly confronted with random threats. This wasn't a serious threat similar to
Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. This was just some wish by a random guy, which has been built up via the media desire for buzz and clicks.
ZimZalaBimtalk02:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete This was not an assassination attempt, per the sources, the prosecutor, and the later words of the perpetrator after his psychotic episode subsided. If there's significant content it could be merged into relevant articles about mental health, jurisprudence, or other suitable subjects. Otherwise, mentions in the press do not describe an assassination attempt, and the same article could be written about thousands of non-notable prosecutions, all sourced about as well as this one.
SPECIFICOtalk15:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
While that might confirm his intent, does this rise to an actual "assassination attempt"? Best case, this should be trimmed and listed in an article that outlines "threats" to Trump. This really seems to be a case of
WP:UNDUE for this case that hasn't risen to any level of major focus by the media or even Trump himself. --
ZimZalaBimtalk16:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Nonsense. And don't mislead editors who are not fully familiar with the sources and the facts. He did not plead guilty to attempted murder. He was convicted of having had possession of a firearm. No assault. No attempted anything. You think perpetrators of attempts on the life of a US political figure get 6 months in minimum security? All the initial coverage as an "assassination attempt" was revised and discarded. The only issue the media ultimately covered here is how to treat a psychotic young Aspergers guy who had a breakdown. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SPECIFICO (
talk •
contribs)
17:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
If that's all you've got, McPhail, you haven't got much. "Someone" is not Trump (did you miss that?) and your argument is only a little stronger if he referred to Trump elsewhere. ―
Mandruss☎03:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Per my comments on the last AfD from three years ago: "Has received consistent coverage since it happened, enough so that the BBC aired a documentary on it six months later." We could argue about the seriousness of the attempt but that is totally unrelated to notability.
LM2000 (
talk)
16:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Tabloid garbage, promotional and primary for the documentary. Look at what you linked for a BLP discussion. Seriously? Here's the article that describes the documentary. It is about mental health, not assassination.
[1].
SPECIFICOtalk17:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong keep - Well sourced, meets GNG, had an entire documentary created about it. If reliable sources are covering this, it deserves an article, so this needs to stay.
Jdcomix (
talk)
22:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Jdcomix: Please examine the sources. The "whole documentary" was not about any assassination. It was about mental health, social services, and the courts. And it was just a cable/internet show that was slapped together and has vanished from public view. Like a segment of "Dateline" or "60 Minutes" in the USA. Also, if you'll look at the print media citations, they're all from the time immediately after the incident, before the facts were known and the charges were reduced to almost nothing. There has been no ongoing coverage or discussion of this inceident, because it's not
notable.
SPECIFICOtalk23:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
FYI, I'm not opposed to renaming the article, but it's received enough coverage to keep the article. I'll probably start a move discussion on the talk page tonight or tomorrow morning when I think of a name.
Jdcomix (
talk)
23:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Re-name. I think that the topic is keep-worthy, but the title just seems wrong. It's really very much different from the Reagan example. I haven't quite come up with a proper move target, but I think something along the lines of an "incident", or something like the examples given just above by CaptainEek, would be much better. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
23:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Re-name if kept. - Neither he nor anyone else was charged with or convicted of attempting to assassinate Trump or anyone else. But Wikipedia noneless uses a headline which unequivocally says there was an attempted assassination. I thought we were better than this.
Moriori (
talk)
00:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep but rename. "Attempted assassination" is inaccurate and belittles actual attempted assassinations of presidents like Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Teddy Roosevelt, all of whom had guns fired in attempts to kill them, and several of whom were wounded. In conclusion, this was a notable incident but not an actual attempted assassination. Worth noting is that attempted assassination of the president is a specific crime.
Lynette Fromme was convicted of this though she never fired a bullet, and served 34 years in prison. This guy was not charged with attempted assassination, served six months on lesser charges, and was deported.
Cullen328Let's discuss it02:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
It may be more or less innocuous if it's properly renamed, but all the BLP disparaging descriptions of the incident would also need to be removed. Is it really notable when the only press coverage occurred right at the time of the incident and before the facts were understood. Many of the cited sources do not reflect the later descriptions of what happened. @
McPhail: - Why did you create this article? What do you feel is notable about the incident? What brought it to your attention? I am not understanding your devotion to the current narrative in this article.
SPECIFICOtalk02:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Well sourced; no case for failing WP:NOT has been made. Not overly concerned about the name; in my ENGVAR "attempted assassination" is a reasonable description; but would prefer a rename or move discussion to be held on the article Talk page. How are we for precipitation of the frozen kind? -
Ryk72talk02:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Re-name if kept. Morimori is on the right path. Despite being relatively well-informed about that person's public events, the first I heard about this being considered an "assassination attempt" was when I learned of the existence of this article. The US Secret Service is very sensitive about attempts on the life of the chief executive of the US, & unless they label an event an "assassination attempt", I find it hard to consider that event one. And were it not for having an effect in UK public affairs, I'd go as far as question this event's notability. People get ejected from public events all of the time for various reasons. --
llywrch (
talk)
17:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete for sheer
WP:BLP reasons. This entire article exists to accuse a named, otherwise-unknown living person of a major crime that he has not even been charged with, much less convicted of. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
22:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Snow Keep Article easily passes WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:SUSTAINED (albeit the longer term coverage was mostly in the UK). Sorry, and while assuming good faith on the part of the OP, this is not a close call. I strongly suggest a speedy close. Discussion of a possible name change can be carried out on the article talk page. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
02:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
obvious delete The characterization of this as a serious assassination attempt is patently untrue and there's no "balance" to be achieved between political mouthpiece conservative sources and the rest of the world. On top of it the thing reeks of a certain kind of recentism since it was forgotten about in the US almost as soon as it had happened. The BLP angle is also considerable. Maybe a new article could be written with a more accurate focus on the UK ramifications, but this version of it needs to be gotten rid of, without a redirect.
Mangoe (
talk)
06:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Even though all the coverage happened within a year of the event and there's no identified topic for the article after cleanup? Asking you as an experienced Admin for guidance on this.
SPECIFICOtalk16:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The news coverage was extensive and of sufficient duration to ring the WP:N bell. And Notability is
not temporary. I do agree that whether this qualifies as an actual assassination attempt is debatable. Some sort of name change may be desirable. But that is not relevant to the question of whether or not this event passes our notability guidelines, which it clearly does. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
16:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Suggestion There is no question that the article passes our notability guidelines, but legitimate concerns have been raised as to whether or not the event in question was an actual assassination attempt. I would suggest that the article subject be broadened. There were at least two incidents during the campaign that involved Mr. Trump's security. This one and another where somebody tried to rush him. The latter one probably does not meet our guidelines for a stand alone article. There may have been others. I wasn't paying close attention to this sort of thing at the time. I would suggest that this page be broadened to cover security related incidents during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. A new name could be applied reflecting the broader focus with this title being left as a redirect. Courtesy ping
SPECIFICO,
Mangoe,
NatGertler
While I have no objection to their being an article on security issues during the Trump campaign, assuming that there is some source article that points to more than just one such incident (so that combining them isn't
WP:SYNTH), I do have a strong objection to the current title being used as a redirect to that page. Again, this would be being used in Wikipedia voice to suggest that a living individual attempted an assassination that he has not been charged with, much less convicted of. Really, the page should be blanked even while this discussion continues. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
16:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I do not think this was a security incident. It was a crazed kid flailing at a guard and knocked to the ground. That's all. He never got the gun, let alone did anything violent with or without it. I also question whether this had extensive or lasting coverage. One can find news reports of countless arrests and then more coverage at the time of the trial. In this case, the so-called "documentary" was a tabloid bit on a web channel run by BBC, now taken down, that dealt with mental health issues, not assassination. It's cruel that a single editor has written 90-95 percent of the text of an article that depicts this young man as a would-be assassain, and I'm stunned that the WP community is apparently content to publish this.
SPECIFICOtalk17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Agreed. BLP1E would be a showstopper for an article about the young man. That said, someone trying to grab a gun from a police officer at a rally for a presidential campaign is definitely a security incident, whether they got the gun or not. I don't remember any, but if there were any incidents involving other candidates the article could even be broadened to
Security incidents during the 2016 US Presidential Campaign or something similar. Whether or not the term assassination attempt could be retained in a redirect would depend on whether it was employed by reliable secondary sources. That's what we go by. Our personal opinions are neither here nor there. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
17:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
After pondering BLP, specifically NAME and CRIME, I am inclined to think it would be best if the man's name was redacted from the article and replaced with appropriate pronouns. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
17:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I think one difficulty we face is the lack of coverage once all the facts became known. Really all we have is the coverage of the sentencing at which the judge said he did not think the kid tried to commit a violent crime. Almost all the sources are from a period of confusion made worse by the kid's statements after he naively waived his Miranda Rights and the prosecutor was making inflated allegations that he and the grand jury soon dropped.
SPECIFICOtalk19:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep because of the many sources discussing the incident. The name of the article is not a reason for deletion, as it can be changed if necessary. Personal beliefs about what does and does not constitute an attempted assassination are irrelevant.
Freeknowledgecreator (
talk)
00:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Rename if kept. I have always thought this incident did not deserve an article, but discusssnts here make a good case for GNG based on the coverage in the UK. However the incident certainly does not warrant the title "Assassination attempt". I think the suggestion above for an article "threats against" similar to the one about Obama was excellent, and should be done if the article is kept (on which I am now neutral).
MelanieN alt (
talk)
17:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete but merge to Donald Trump without redirect, rename if kept. I think it shouldn't have a stand-alone page per
WP:NOTNEWS. This is a minor incident, and yes, of course it received press coverage, but I don't think it passes the
WP:10YEARTEST. I think the amount of content devoted to this minor incident in a stand-alone article is
WP:UNDUE, and the content instead properly belongs at the biography of
Donald Trump (or maybe one of the child articles, like about his campaign), and so it should be merged. I do not think there should be a redirect, because this title is totally bogus. If the article is kept, I support renaming it, as it was not an assassination attempt and is not described as such by the consensus of reliable sources. The page, with this title, should be deleted, because we are giving readers the false impression that there was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump's life. –
Levivich04:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep but rename as the largest BLP violation I think I've ever seen here -- the title virtually accusing a named living individual of a crime they have not been charged with, when a court found them guilty of disorderly conduct. Sitting here writing this, I'm tempted to boldly blank the page or redact the individual's name, but that'd probably be unnecessarily disruptive. What about "2016 Trump rally pistol-grabbing incident", or Security Incident titles as suggested above.
Feoffer (
talk)
12:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The "delete" arguments are less numerous and weaker. The "delete" side argues that this was not an actual or serious assassination attempt. That may or may not be so, but it is not relevant for inclusion according to our policies and guidelines for articles about events. These rules are based on the amount, quality of an event's coverage in reliable sources, and its lasting importance. While there may well be arguments against keeping the article on these grounds, the "delete" side by and large does not make them. They also allege BLP problems, but these seem to be largely an issue of the title accusing the man concerned of attempted assassination, of which he was not in fact convicted. This can be remedied by renaming the article, and deletion is not required to resolve this problem. Sandstein 19:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Mention of this was recently removed from
Donald Trump. While there is media coverage, this doesn't appear to be a serious act and politicians are constantly confronted with random threats. This wasn't a serious threat similar to
Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. This was just some wish by a random guy, which has been built up via the media desire for buzz and clicks.
ZimZalaBimtalk02:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete This was not an assassination attempt, per the sources, the prosecutor, and the later words of the perpetrator after his psychotic episode subsided. If there's significant content it could be merged into relevant articles about mental health, jurisprudence, or other suitable subjects. Otherwise, mentions in the press do not describe an assassination attempt, and the same article could be written about thousands of non-notable prosecutions, all sourced about as well as this one.
SPECIFICOtalk15:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
While that might confirm his intent, does this rise to an actual "assassination attempt"? Best case, this should be trimmed and listed in an article that outlines "threats" to Trump. This really seems to be a case of
WP:UNDUE for this case that hasn't risen to any level of major focus by the media or even Trump himself. --
ZimZalaBimtalk16:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Nonsense. And don't mislead editors who are not fully familiar with the sources and the facts. He did not plead guilty to attempted murder. He was convicted of having had possession of a firearm. No assault. No attempted anything. You think perpetrators of attempts on the life of a US political figure get 6 months in minimum security? All the initial coverage as an "assassination attempt" was revised and discarded. The only issue the media ultimately covered here is how to treat a psychotic young Aspergers guy who had a breakdown. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SPECIFICO (
talk •
contribs)
17:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
If that's all you've got, McPhail, you haven't got much. "Someone" is not Trump (did you miss that?) and your argument is only a little stronger if he referred to Trump elsewhere. ―
Mandruss☎03:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Per my comments on the last AfD from three years ago: "Has received consistent coverage since it happened, enough so that the BBC aired a documentary on it six months later." We could argue about the seriousness of the attempt but that is totally unrelated to notability.
LM2000 (
talk)
16:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Tabloid garbage, promotional and primary for the documentary. Look at what you linked for a BLP discussion. Seriously? Here's the article that describes the documentary. It is about mental health, not assassination.
[1].
SPECIFICOtalk17:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong keep - Well sourced, meets GNG, had an entire documentary created about it. If reliable sources are covering this, it deserves an article, so this needs to stay.
Jdcomix (
talk)
22:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Jdcomix: Please examine the sources. The "whole documentary" was not about any assassination. It was about mental health, social services, and the courts. And it was just a cable/internet show that was slapped together and has vanished from public view. Like a segment of "Dateline" or "60 Minutes" in the USA. Also, if you'll look at the print media citations, they're all from the time immediately after the incident, before the facts were known and the charges were reduced to almost nothing. There has been no ongoing coverage or discussion of this inceident, because it's not
notable.
SPECIFICOtalk23:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
FYI, I'm not opposed to renaming the article, but it's received enough coverage to keep the article. I'll probably start a move discussion on the talk page tonight or tomorrow morning when I think of a name.
Jdcomix (
talk)
23:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Re-name. I think that the topic is keep-worthy, but the title just seems wrong. It's really very much different from the Reagan example. I haven't quite come up with a proper move target, but I think something along the lines of an "incident", or something like the examples given just above by CaptainEek, would be much better. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
23:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Re-name if kept. - Neither he nor anyone else was charged with or convicted of attempting to assassinate Trump or anyone else. But Wikipedia noneless uses a headline which unequivocally says there was an attempted assassination. I thought we were better than this.
Moriori (
talk)
00:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep but rename. "Attempted assassination" is inaccurate and belittles actual attempted assassinations of presidents like Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Teddy Roosevelt, all of whom had guns fired in attempts to kill them, and several of whom were wounded. In conclusion, this was a notable incident but not an actual attempted assassination. Worth noting is that attempted assassination of the president is a specific crime.
Lynette Fromme was convicted of this though she never fired a bullet, and served 34 years in prison. This guy was not charged with attempted assassination, served six months on lesser charges, and was deported.
Cullen328Let's discuss it02:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
It may be more or less innocuous if it's properly renamed, but all the BLP disparaging descriptions of the incident would also need to be removed. Is it really notable when the only press coverage occurred right at the time of the incident and before the facts were understood. Many of the cited sources do not reflect the later descriptions of what happened. @
McPhail: - Why did you create this article? What do you feel is notable about the incident? What brought it to your attention? I am not understanding your devotion to the current narrative in this article.
SPECIFICOtalk02:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Well sourced; no case for failing WP:NOT has been made. Not overly concerned about the name; in my ENGVAR "attempted assassination" is a reasonable description; but would prefer a rename or move discussion to be held on the article Talk page. How are we for precipitation of the frozen kind? -
Ryk72talk02:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Re-name if kept. Morimori is on the right path. Despite being relatively well-informed about that person's public events, the first I heard about this being considered an "assassination attempt" was when I learned of the existence of this article. The US Secret Service is very sensitive about attempts on the life of the chief executive of the US, & unless they label an event an "assassination attempt", I find it hard to consider that event one. And were it not for having an effect in UK public affairs, I'd go as far as question this event's notability. People get ejected from public events all of the time for various reasons. --
llywrch (
talk)
17:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete for sheer
WP:BLP reasons. This entire article exists to accuse a named, otherwise-unknown living person of a major crime that he has not even been charged with, much less convicted of. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
22:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Snow Keep Article easily passes WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:SUSTAINED (albeit the longer term coverage was mostly in the UK). Sorry, and while assuming good faith on the part of the OP, this is not a close call. I strongly suggest a speedy close. Discussion of a possible name change can be carried out on the article talk page. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
02:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
obvious delete The characterization of this as a serious assassination attempt is patently untrue and there's no "balance" to be achieved between political mouthpiece conservative sources and the rest of the world. On top of it the thing reeks of a certain kind of recentism since it was forgotten about in the US almost as soon as it had happened. The BLP angle is also considerable. Maybe a new article could be written with a more accurate focus on the UK ramifications, but this version of it needs to be gotten rid of, without a redirect.
Mangoe (
talk)
06:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Even though all the coverage happened within a year of the event and there's no identified topic for the article after cleanup? Asking you as an experienced Admin for guidance on this.
SPECIFICOtalk16:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The news coverage was extensive and of sufficient duration to ring the WP:N bell. And Notability is
not temporary. I do agree that whether this qualifies as an actual assassination attempt is debatable. Some sort of name change may be desirable. But that is not relevant to the question of whether or not this event passes our notability guidelines, which it clearly does. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
16:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Suggestion There is no question that the article passes our notability guidelines, but legitimate concerns have been raised as to whether or not the event in question was an actual assassination attempt. I would suggest that the article subject be broadened. There were at least two incidents during the campaign that involved Mr. Trump's security. This one and another where somebody tried to rush him. The latter one probably does not meet our guidelines for a stand alone article. There may have been others. I wasn't paying close attention to this sort of thing at the time. I would suggest that this page be broadened to cover security related incidents during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. A new name could be applied reflecting the broader focus with this title being left as a redirect. Courtesy ping
SPECIFICO,
Mangoe,
NatGertler
While I have no objection to their being an article on security issues during the Trump campaign, assuming that there is some source article that points to more than just one such incident (so that combining them isn't
WP:SYNTH), I do have a strong objection to the current title being used as a redirect to that page. Again, this would be being used in Wikipedia voice to suggest that a living individual attempted an assassination that he has not been charged with, much less convicted of. Really, the page should be blanked even while this discussion continues. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
16:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I do not think this was a security incident. It was a crazed kid flailing at a guard and knocked to the ground. That's all. He never got the gun, let alone did anything violent with or without it. I also question whether this had extensive or lasting coverage. One can find news reports of countless arrests and then more coverage at the time of the trial. In this case, the so-called "documentary" was a tabloid bit on a web channel run by BBC, now taken down, that dealt with mental health issues, not assassination. It's cruel that a single editor has written 90-95 percent of the text of an article that depicts this young man as a would-be assassain, and I'm stunned that the WP community is apparently content to publish this.
SPECIFICOtalk17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Agreed. BLP1E would be a showstopper for an article about the young man. That said, someone trying to grab a gun from a police officer at a rally for a presidential campaign is definitely a security incident, whether they got the gun or not. I don't remember any, but if there were any incidents involving other candidates the article could even be broadened to
Security incidents during the 2016 US Presidential Campaign or something similar. Whether or not the term assassination attempt could be retained in a redirect would depend on whether it was employed by reliable secondary sources. That's what we go by. Our personal opinions are neither here nor there. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
17:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
After pondering BLP, specifically NAME and CRIME, I am inclined to think it would be best if the man's name was redacted from the article and replaced with appropriate pronouns. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
17:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I think one difficulty we face is the lack of coverage once all the facts became known. Really all we have is the coverage of the sentencing at which the judge said he did not think the kid tried to commit a violent crime. Almost all the sources are from a period of confusion made worse by the kid's statements after he naively waived his Miranda Rights and the prosecutor was making inflated allegations that he and the grand jury soon dropped.
SPECIFICOtalk19:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep because of the many sources discussing the incident. The name of the article is not a reason for deletion, as it can be changed if necessary. Personal beliefs about what does and does not constitute an attempted assassination are irrelevant.
Freeknowledgecreator (
talk)
00:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Rename if kept. I have always thought this incident did not deserve an article, but discusssnts here make a good case for GNG based on the coverage in the UK. However the incident certainly does not warrant the title "Assassination attempt". I think the suggestion above for an article "threats against" similar to the one about Obama was excellent, and should be done if the article is kept (on which I am now neutral).
MelanieN alt (
talk)
17:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete but merge to Donald Trump without redirect, rename if kept. I think it shouldn't have a stand-alone page per
WP:NOTNEWS. This is a minor incident, and yes, of course it received press coverage, but I don't think it passes the
WP:10YEARTEST. I think the amount of content devoted to this minor incident in a stand-alone article is
WP:UNDUE, and the content instead properly belongs at the biography of
Donald Trump (or maybe one of the child articles, like about his campaign), and so it should be merged. I do not think there should be a redirect, because this title is totally bogus. If the article is kept, I support renaming it, as it was not an assassination attempt and is not described as such by the consensus of reliable sources. The page, with this title, should be deleted, because we are giving readers the false impression that there was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump's life. –
Levivich04:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep but rename as the largest BLP violation I think I've ever seen here -- the title virtually accusing a named living individual of a crime they have not been charged with, when a court found them guilty of disorderly conduct. Sitting here writing this, I'm tempted to boldly blank the page or redact the individual's name, but that'd probably be unnecessarily disruptive. What about "2016 Trump rally pistol-grabbing incident", or Security Incident titles as suggested above.
Feoffer (
talk)
12:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.