Talk:Northwest Detention Center

Merger proposal
I propose to merge 2019 Tacoma attack into Northwest Detention Center. While 2019 Tacoma Attack survived an AfD on the basis of WP:RAPID, a sudden drop-off in coverage following the initial event suggests that it may not have ultimately met WP:EVENTCRIT; that being said, it is probably WP:DUE mention in this article. As such, I'm proposing to merge its contents here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merge per the above and my comments at Talk:2019 Tacoma attack. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merge as above. robertsky (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Sources show no lasting importance. The event can easily be covered with due weight in the parent article. czar  21:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. It is a US domestic terror event involving a fatality, which is why it merited WP:DUE in the last analysis. Furthermore, it continues to recieve national news coverage: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22willem+van+spronsen%22&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS739US740&sxsrf=ACYBGNT_C3Of4UBqFFwSczV-0j4wM2COcA:1569538866000&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbqsb0y-_kAhUjrVkKHbchA68Q_AUIEigB&biw=853&bih=837 MaximumIdeas (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge per arguments in 2019 Tacoma attack's July 2019 AfD which resulted in "Keep". A merge proposal shouldn't be used as a second backdoor AfD. --Pudeo (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is nothing of the sort. Please avoid such mischaracterizations. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The result of the AfD was "keep". I don't see any point in revisiting this so soon after said consensus. What has changed in 2 months? Just accept the result of the AfD. --Pudeo (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What's changed is that it's now possible to assess the event's lasting effects (which we require for events to be notable) or lack thereof, which wasn't possible at the time of the AfD. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The AfD was closed in July, now we are in September. This is a way to override the clear AfD result. But seing how this discussion is going a Merge seems unlikely.BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support merge. That article is barely more than a stub and relies on excessive trivia and quotes to reach even that length; and the drop-off in coverage (the few linked above are passing mentions, often in opinion pieces, or from blogs) means it's unlikely it will ever be anything more - certainly there's no evidence of lasting impact.  It's best covered on this page. --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merge - Seems reasonable given the amount of coverage. Pointing to the AfD isn't much of an argument against in this case, btw, as so much of that AfD had to do with explicit or implicit references to WP:RAPID. Putting aside the deficits of that argument on its own (paired with WP:DELAY and whatnot), it's built on the idea that we can/should check later to see if it has lasting significance. That's what's happening here. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging everyone who participated in Articles for deletion/2019 Tacoma attack given that the AfD result is being challenged:, , , , , , , , , , , . Thanks for your time. --Pudeo (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge - The result if the AfD was Keep, in as early as July. This Merge discussion is basically a way to try to override that result. I see no reason for merging.BabbaQ (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merge - Not every crime deserves an article. Coverage dropped dramatically. We should be more careful adding articles about recent events that will not stand the test of time. O3000 (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge This is an end run around what was a very strong keep. Additionally the nominator should be familiar with WP:NTEMP Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Lightburst (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Huh I genuinely thought this story was going to get more coverage. I’m sympathetic to those who say that this is in some way a backdoor deletion (it doesn’t feel like a great move) but I also cant fault those who are making the argument to merge it because it does appear to have been a proverbial flash in the pan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)