Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Matthew Crooks


 * 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  speedy  keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. WP:SNOW close. Overwhelming consensus for keep, backed by strong policy-based arguments. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Post-closing note: - I have struck the part of the close referring to a speedy keep - that was an error on my part. It is not a speedy keep, but a WP:SNOW close and keep per WP:SK. Mea culpa —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Matthew Crooks

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Appears to be pretty obvious WP:BLP1E; should be redirect to Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump ― Howard • 🌽33 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and United States of America. ― Howard • 🌽33 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * sorry i dont mean BLP as he is dead, but this person is still only known for one event ― Howard • 🌽33 11:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Rather WP:BIO1E should be referenced. ― Howard • 🌽33 11:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * nvm just found out that BLP1E also applies to the recently deceased ― Howard • 🌽33 12:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. BLP still applies to the recently deceased. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE There are articles about Squeaky Fromme, Sara Jane Moore, John Schrank, etc. H. H. Asquith David Lloyd George (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - For WP:BLP1E all three conditions should be met. The third one is "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." - Robotje (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Memevietnam98 (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Di. Let the dust settle before we have an article for this guy. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. There is nothing here that cannot be included in the event article. WWGB (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Every person who has shot a U.S. president, including John Hinckley Jr. and John Schrank, has their own Wikipedia article. Why should this one be any different? MrsKoma (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Even though there's articles that are the subject of people who attempted to assassinate/assinate a U.S. president, it doesn't mean that Crooks should have an article. It's based on notability established from sources, and it doesn't seem like it. ~ Tails   Wx  12:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you explain your reasoning for not considering existing coverage to be sufficient? Articles dedicated solely to Thomas Matthew Crooks have been published by the BBC, Reuters, CNN, CBC, New York Times, Sky News, The Telegraph, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, and many more. Many of these articles are not simply reporting on his identification as the shooter, but on the man himself: his background, political beliefs, motivation, childhood, etc. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This might be a bit off topic, however, hurricanes may covered by dozens to hundreds of sources depending on their lifespan but still not get articles because they werent notable. ✶Qux  yz  ✶  14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You seriously believe that the man responsible for the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, in one of the most consequential elections of our lifetime, isn't a notable person? Let more coverage about his background come out before deciding to nuke the entire article, this should be common sense. 185.209.199.91 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep – per Robotje and MrsKoma. More than enough coverage. Separate articles exist for the perpetrators of past US assassinations and attempted assassinations, as well as other significant events in the same category. There will almost certainly be a separate article inevitably regardless. I consider the coverage to be significant enough, establishing notability clearly. WP:BLP1E's third condition is not met. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump – not notable at the moment; only notable on this occasion for his involvement in the assassination, as others have stated above. ~ Tails   Wx  12:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as there are numerous news articles about this individual person. Famous for 1 event means that there can be an article if the event is significant enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep people and media are obviously interested in the person. Thue (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Media interest and people's curiosity are not supportable arguments for article validity. Kingturtle = (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. The subject has multiple news articles from various sources and is most certainly notable enough for his own article. PortlandSaint (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. As per BLP, it is still very early days, and he is only known for his assassination attempt. Information about him can be simply redirected to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Edl-irishboy (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Robotje. Normally I would support a redirect instead but this seems significant enough to warrant him having his own article and there are also numerous news agencies reporting solely about him per GhostOfNoMeme. Procyon117 (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Low-quality Wikipedia articles that get a lot of attention (usually current news articles) almost always end up in a much better state than the ones they started in. While this article is new and at the moment isn't detailed enough, I expect it to rise in quality significantly as time goes by and more details emerge. BLP1E is not met because this person definitely does not meet criteria #3. For the time being I see no need to delete this article. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not in favor of redirection because the details about the shooter that emerge will eventually bloat the assassination attempt article. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 12:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Kingturtle = (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * WP:BLP1E: As User:Robotje noted, the third prong of this policy is not satisfied; both the event and the individual’s role in it are clearly significant.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: This is an essay, not a policy. As far as it’s relevant, it states that “you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. [...] comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review [...] makes a much more credible case.” The article on John Hinckley Jr. is a vital article (see Talk:John Hinckley Jr.), and the article on John Schrank is rated as a good article. Thus, according to this essay, a comparison mentioning the existence of these articles (in accordance with WP:BLP1E in the case of Hinckley, and in the case of Schrank in accordance with WP:BIO1E, which says “If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.”) is a valid argument.
 * Joriki (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep BLP1E third condition not met: event is significant, and significant enough role and increasingly well documented. Widefox ; talk 12:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS only applies if the other stuff also shouldn't exist. I'm still waiting for an argument as to why we should carve out a special exception for this person as opposed to other presidential assassins-manque (or presidential candidates, see Arthur Bremer). If you want to also delete and the other articles in Category:American failed assassins make that argument. Herostratus (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for an argument as to why we should carve out a special exception for this person...
 * Arguments could be made along the lines that
 * He didn't survive and will not go through a "trial of the decade" like Hinckley or Schrank did. There will be no future appearances from Crook.
 * He wasn't assassinated by someone associated with the mob like Oswald was.
 * He's 21 and is unlikely to have a notable past.
 * Unless it turns out he was in the pay of someone to shoot Trump to make way for a more moderate/hardline nominee (pick your conspiracy) then there's not a lot aside from "21year old shoots at former President", which is inevitably going to leave a stub article where the citations outnumber the words. But per WP:LAGGING, we ain't there yet on demonstrating some more notable background/context. Hemmers (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect, but we should re-evaluate when more information comes out about him Personisinsterest (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep When it comes to the notability issue, articles about him are popping up quick. No one gets famous instantly, rather overnight. Still, being the person who tried to assassinate a former US president would make him notable by action alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rektz (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong delete: This is WP:TOOSOON, we have little information about the shooter himself. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong redirect – this is WP:TOOSOON and a bunch of other policy violations. Redirect to attempted assassination of Donald Trump until it’s time to create article. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Changine to strong redirect under same reasoning above. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Did the nominator even read BLP1E? The specific example used in point three is almost an exact parallel. An assassination attempt on a (former) president.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, At the moment, we have too little amount of information on the gunman but I doubt anything will come out that will make us reconsider our decision. He didn't even see his 21st birthday and the only notable thing he did was shoot the former president in the ear. Besides, it's also WAY too soon to create a page on the perpetrator of a shooting that happened 15 hours ago. - MountainJew6150 (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. It's too soon to evaluate the person's notability (WP:TOOSOON). Sure, the event may be significant, but if a tiny stub is the most we can get right now, might as well put it in the Perpetrator section instead. When a page is needed later on, one can create the page. Spinixster   (trout me!)  13:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. A biography of negligible biographical depth, in which more is written about what is not known than is known. If and when significant coverage about the person emerges, a useful article can be spun out. Until then, keep rationales are based on other people and speculated interest. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep There is precedence for creating article like this one and this event has triggered a substantial media response. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. There are no elements that justify its own article yet. The information in the article in question could perfectly well be in the main article.Fabiojrsouza (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep as there is a good amount of information. The event was very notable. Not much of background yet though. The article will likely continue to grow. Cwater1 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. As others have already noted, all three prongs must be met to meet the deletion criteria under WP:BLP1E, and Crooks clearly does not meet prong three. A person carrying out a serious US presidential assassination attempt is literally the example they give of why someone would not meet prong three. Wikipedialuva (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump as suggested. All that there is to say and all that there likely ever will be to say about this person in an encyclopedic context is already said, with more appropriate weight and better sources, in the two small paragraphs in the assassination article. The other presidential assassins that keep getting referenced here were for the most part somewhat notable for things they did prior to their attempts, and all of them survived and went on to attract significant media attention throughout their trials and subsequent lives. Crooks was barely out of high school when he was shot dead - he didn't evidently do anything noteworthy in his short life leading up to his attempt for the media to obsess about, there won't be media attention for a subsequent trial, he won't be interviewed from his prison cell, there won't be a media circus every time he's up for parole, and so on. What we have now is a pseudo-biography of a person notable for a single event. If more information does come up later to support more than a pseudo-bio that summarizes this person's entire life with "he was born then he shot Trump", we can revisit an article at that time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s like saying ‘all that can be invented, has been invented. So let's close the US Patent Office!’. It has been less than 24-hours since the event and you’re ready to close this chapter without additional discovery. Your short sightedness has clouded your judgement. 2A02:8070:48B:B800:A16D:B21D:C914:DEE (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. And watch the personal attacks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump as suggested. MushroomMan674 (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. This easily meets the notability threshold. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the defining principle here. When you try to kill a US President (sitting or former), you become notable. Simple as that. More info to come. BarntToust (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * KEEP - WP:BIO1E specifically states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The  assassins of major political leaders , such as Gavrilo Princip,  fit into this category , as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Baltarstar (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This will definitely not be the Princip of our times. It is too early to consider this attack as an example of such an event, we will see that only when we assess the impact of this attack on the campaign. This criterion applies to the Kennedy assassination or the sinking of the Titanic, events about which many books have been written. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Thomas Matthew Crooks is now extremely notable, and has received national coverage for attempting to assassinate Donald Trump. JohnAdams1800
 * Keep. WP:BIO1E doesn't prohibit this article, it even specifically states: "On the other hand, if a significant event is of rare importance, even relatively minor participants may warrant their own articles." This event meets those criteria, and Crooks is a major participant. -- Falcorian (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is too early to consider this attack as an example of such an event, we will see that only when we assess the impact of this attack on the campaign. This criterion applies to the Kennedy assassination or the sinking of the Titanic, events about which many books have been written. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This matches the the attempted assignation of Reagan, which meets the criteria. -- Falcorian (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Manifestly notable, doesn't meet all deletion criteria as proposed. Killuminator (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This person tried to assassinate a presidential candidate. Incredibly notable. BlunanNation (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, Whichever way you look at it, it is WP:BLP1E, unlike the assassins who have their own articles, this boy died on the spot, so it's unlikely that his biography is noteworthy in itself, but only as context for the attack itself. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as the third condition of WP:BLP1E is clearly not met. It states: "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." The event is 1) significant and 2) Crooks' role is both substantial and well documented (as demonstrated by the significant coverage already dedicated to Crooks; the BBC, Reuters, NYT, CNN, CBC, Telegraph, Guardian, etc. have all published articles on Crooks, and we will inevitably see further and more detailed coverage over time). GhostOfNoMeme 13:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is too early to consider this attack as an example of such an event, we will see that only when we assess the impact of this attack on the campaign. This criterion applies to the Kennedy assassination or the sinking of the Titanic, events about which many books have been written. The perpetrator of the 2023 Nashville school shooting also received a lot of media attention immediately following the attack, but ultimately proved to be unworthy of a separate article. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the attempted assassination of a former US president and current US presidential candidate is eminently a significant event. WP:BLP1E uses the example of the Reagan assassination attempt, not Kennedy's assassination. Clearly, such events are significant in and of themselves. I don't believe we need to wait for books to be written to establish this event as plainly significant on the face of it. GhostOfNoMeme 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition to the fact that Hinckley didn't kill Reagan, he's also an interesting case for forensic psychiatry, and he's still alive today. Crooks won't do anything interesting again, maybe he'll go down in pop culture, but it's too early for that now. If Trump had died or Crooks had survived, the notability of this person would be beyond dispute, but as it is, this biography does not provide it. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - Whether we like it or not, Thomas Matthew Crooks belongs to American history by his deed; the page opened in his name will be expanded as serious, sourced information becomes available; keeping this page open avoids the scattering of these additional details to come in subsections of other pages that would talk about Thomas Matthew Crooks. Golffies (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - Thomas Matthew Crooks Has Public Interest and Potential for Expansion: He is of public interest and has the potential for expansion. Even if the article is currently a stub, it can serve as a starting point for further research and development by the Wikipedia community. He is genuinely interesting to the public, it deserves a place on the platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoisjohngalt (talk • contribs) 13:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump; as BLP1E, why should we have articles about shooters while they are not known other than the tragic event? Toadette Edit! 14:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep changing mh mind  Toadette Edit! 16:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh come on. Speedy keep and close. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep Robotje duly referenced the Wikipedia rule "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." Self explanatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. It is too early for a dedicated page. It's obvious we should wait until ideology and history is discovered. At least until the investigation is complete. Let it play out. 24.167.35.28 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - This individual attempted to assassinate a former President. Whether we like that former President or not, this is a historic event in American history which just took place. John Hinkley attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan and there is a Wikipedia page for him. There is precedent for having Wikipedia pages for even failed presidential assassins. I imagine we will learn even more about this shooter which means there will be opportunities to expand the page. --LasVegasGirl93 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * John Hinkley survived the attempt and went on to have a trial. Compare the two articles. If more comes out about the shooter then we can create the page then, however, the existing article is nothing more than a stub and has no additional information outside of what's already mentioned on the assassination attempt article. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect Does not necessarily meet BLP1E; as I don't believe the anything is known about the motive or the subject at this time. Since the perp didn't survive, there will likely be little to write about and article will remain a stub. role was both substantial and well documented per WP:BLP1E] as the example there specifically cites the attempted assassinator of Reagan. If more comes out later, article can always be created and expanded. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect Per WP:NSUSTAINED: If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. Hypnôs (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - as per above. Sebastián Arena... Urantia three-concentric-blue-circles-on-white symbol.svg 14:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to main article. A lot of the Keep votes here seem to violate WP:CRYSTAL. There's no rush. Guettarda (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. This person is known for only one event, and the assasination itself failed in terms of taking the target's life. Before the investigation opens up some significant background or related story, I do not see it necessary to keep this article. HolyCrocsEmperor (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Great achievement (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep, mostly because a Redirect would only last briefly, if at all, as all other assassins, and would be assassins, have their own article. Having said that, this article should be brief and not turned into a veiled attempt to entertain partisan interests of any kind. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator Davi.xyz (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: per above. Drowssap  SMM  14:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Efe Önem (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: Numerous other people have stated that it should be kept for not meeting the third prong of WP:BLP1E, and I agree. However, it might need to be protected because of general sanctions about post-‘92 us politics, but i am not 100% sure 24.115.255.37 (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: I agree with most of the "reasons to keep" that others have mentioned. Charlie (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per Robotje and others on the significance of this event. 53  (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep All perpetrators who have injured or shot presidents have an article. 2407:4D00:1C06:87E0:ADC7:77EA:8300:6963 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep he is going to become the subject of intense mass analysis of him specifically, information that won't necessarily be wholly relevant to the page for the assassination attempt itself Claire 26 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump per WP:BIO1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE. The latter aptly reminds us that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, and it's quite clear that this individual is only notable for taking a shot at Trump. The present state of Thomas Matthew Crooks is such that it could be fully incorporated into the article on the assassination attempt without creating balance issues, and I think it would be better to present information on the perpetrator in the context of the shooting, rather than have two separate articles to maintain. As such, I believe we should redirect and merge this article to its natural parent. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 14:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump per WP:BIO1E. Nothing here that can't be included in the event article.  R. G. Checkers talk 14:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep John Hinckley Jr. and Jared Lee Loughner have their own wiki page, it would make logical sense that he will also be the target of intense media and be notable Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep The wounding of a former United States President and current candidate is significant, and his actions will no doubt impact discourse surrounding political violence in the United States, as well as the election itself. Arthur Bremer got his own Wikipedia article, so I feel this is worthy. 21stCenturyCynic (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no way that this isn't going to be documented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable, for being one of a few people attempting or having killed a US president. We've got global coverage at this point, which I'm sure will be discussed and expanded in the near future. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * keep - why deleting? this can be a helpful article that can help people who are interested and want to know more about who the perpetrator was. Barakeldad (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep This nomination is needless deletionism. 15:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Moncrief (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable meets WP:GNG with SIgcov. Bruxton (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect: Better for context to keep the limited amount of information currently available in one article Mrfoogles (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per comments above. --Minilammas (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * KEEP  Lack thereof is worse than denying the event. Political discourse caused the attempt, and we can't let political discourse attempt to erase or besmear. 72.28.130.25 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: At least until the tag for involvement in a current event is removed when the time comes; while this is still unfolding, it’s a little hard to tell the degree to which this man is notable for his role in the event. I regard it as a little premature to make a decision about deletion now. Hydroxyzine-XYZ (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep for the time being, then (probably) redirect. The perpetrator will not do any more notable things; this much is certain. In articles on criminals who are non-notable except for the crime they committed, Wikipedia has no universal standard; Robert Pickton is an article, but "Alek Minassian" redirects to 2018 Toronto van attack, despite both Pickton and Minassian being non-notable beyond their crimes. A criminal investigation that will determine TMC's motive, and whether there is anything notable in his biography beyond the assassination attempt is underway, but at present, we do not know the results, or the contents of his computer, or if he wrote a diary and what it contains, or his social-media handles and activities, etc. All of these may or may not become notable as the investigation proceeds. Present publicly-available information is, I think, a clear argument for a merge/redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, but this information is only preliminary.
 * No clear guideline exists for such cases, but for practical reasons, I think it is better than to keep the articles separate until they are approaching stability, and then decide for a merger (if TMC is indeed non-notable beyond the assassination attempt) or against it (if TMC turns out to be "more than he seems"): Merging will require the TMC article's content to be condensed, and in the case of a re-splitting, this discarded information would need to be restored and re-vetted, which is cumbersome.
 * Also, both articles are liable to be targets of vandalism, edit-wars etc, but in different ways: Attempted assassination of Donald Trump will have a lot of legit information upcoming (to be handled on a per-request basis if the article is protected) but also a lot of opinionated content from non-notable sources; the choice of weapon alone is bound to cause a lot of debate. It thus mainly requires notability-checking. Whereas Thomas Matthew Crooks will have one or very few sources of legit information (the official investigation, as well as maybe some OSINT work) but is liable to be swamped by non-verifiable "facts" that are likely perpetuated by sources that are formally "reliable" (looking at you, New York Post). It thus mainly requires verification-checking. Keeping the articles separate for the time being, rather than having one article that is affected by these two different problems/challenges, will keep these editing/maintenance problems and resultant workload to a minimum, until enough information is available to achieve a broad consensus on how to deal with this case. Dysmorodrepanis2 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge with Attempted assassination of Donald Trump: But I don't know the exact precedent for assassination attempts. Kimen8 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Kimen8 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: We have an article for Lee Harvey Oswald and John Hinckley Jr. — the argument for keeping is strong. Mutspelli (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Easy GNG pass for bio of a chief actor in a historic event. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now to the article about the assassination attempt. I agree with Ivanvector's points that unlike most/all of the other articles about attempted assasins being cited by others in this discussion, Crooks is both dead (precluding further appearances in the public eye) and was very young (unlikely to have accomplished anything else notable) so there is not likely not going to be a lot of further coverage about him beyond his role of pulling the trigger. What little information that is available now is coming out in crumbs and could be served by a section in the main article. Once the dust settles and the investigation is completed, this can be revisited to see if Crooks meets WP:BIO1E. RA 0808  talkcontribs 16:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. We do not have much about the person to validate its own article, just this one event. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Obvious BLP1E. There's some WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS regarding John Hinckley Jr and John Schrank. I consider those different because they survived and were tried - meaning there is a deal of independent coverage about the trials and aftermath, which is derived from the assassination attempt but separate and establishes notability. Likewise, Lee Harvey Oswald survived, was arrested and then assassinated himself by Ruby, who was associated with the mob, which spawned some highly developed conspiracy theories. By contrast, it seems unlikely that there is going to be a great deal of coverage about Crooks that is not directly related to the shooting (so per WP:LAGGING he should be a section of the main article until there's enough to be worth splitting out). Unless it turns out there was some wild conspiracy and he was in the pay of someone to shoot Trump in favour of a different nominee or something similarly out there (I'm sure QAnon have something cooking up, but we need not concern ourselves with that on WP). As it stands, comparable cases might include the attempted kidnapper of Princess Anne, or the perpetrators of the UK's worst mass shooting) or the 2023 Nashville school shooting who do not have their own articles. Just because someone did a bad thing and it's in the news doesn't make them notable. None of the UK's mass shooters have their own articles - it requires something additional like Oswald's shooting or a post-shooting trial.Hemmers (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even if there isn’t enough info on him yet for it to be notable, we will naturally get more and more, deleting it and then having to bring it back when more info comes is unnecessary
 * KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * we will naturally get more and more
 * Will we? Naturally the press will regurgitate the same basic facts - 21year old from Butler, won an award, shot at the former President. And yes, we can add those increasingly repetitive citations to the article, even though half of them will be opening "as reported by ". The presumption that any novel and notable material will emerge to justify a separate article is just that - presumptuous. And per WP:LAGGING, we don't deal in presumption. Hemmers (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep GNG pass for bio of a chief actor in a historic eventThief-River-Faller (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep for now At the moment it's hard to tell exactly how notable the subject will be after this all blows over but I'm generally opposed to WP:RUSHDELETE in situations where notability cannot yet be determined. Ultimately I think it's likely we'll end up with nothing particularly notable on the guy outside of this and having to redirect, but since the story is actively unfolding at the moment I support waiting until the dust settles to delete.  bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖  15:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep he has enough notable coverage in the media to warrant a page. Scu ba (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep As mentioned it doesn't meet with BLP1E, and the article is new and details still emerging, the article will grow. We should wait before we rush to delete or redirect.Tommi1986 let's talk! 15:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, he has enough coverage to warrant a page. And I think attempting to assassinate a former President is notable. Benpiano800 (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep for now I think, as it is an actively developing story, we should keep this, but when it dies down, That is when we should decide to merge. Carson004 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: As described above, all other shooters of US presidents all have their own pages. When more information about Crooks is released, like his exact motives and such, the page will also become more expansive. Nowhere Box (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. History needs to record details on the infamous stains on humandkind as well for future generations to reference. Zindulee (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect until a CFORK is needed of the assassination article due to LENGTH. Seriously why is this even a discussion? --24.125.98.89 (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep he has enough notable coverage in the media to warrant a page. Scu ba (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep if the assassination attempt itself is notable enough for an article, than the assassin should also be notable enough for an article. This kid shot Trump, and was killed in the process. This is world news. Everyone wants to know who this kid was. Like it or not, the easiest way to get famous is to do something like this. This is one for the history books, and people are not going to forget about it anytime soon. --Thoric (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep If we have an article on Anna Ayala then we can have this article too. Nard the Bard (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect: WP:TOOSOON, the story is still developing. -- Auric
 * Keep - As described above, all other shooters of US presidents all have their own pages. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: BLP does not apply as per Point 3. 45.44.122.106 (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, until such time as ther is enough information about the shooter that doesnt belong in the main article. Right now, this would be needless reduplication. Qwirkle (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump per WP:BIO1E. I know it might be hard for most Wikipedians, but it is in fact possible to write concisely and proportionately. We can succinctly cover all salient points about the shooter in a couple paragraphs in the main article, even if local journalists in the next few weeks report he liked video games or bike riding or strawberry ice cream and his neighbors all think he was a fine young man who'd never do such a thing. &#45;-Animalparty! (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Subject has been documented clearly as part of this event, so WP:BIO1E does not apply. Let&#39;srun (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect There is a strong argument to redirect since the information on the perpetrator is limited, however it is likely that this information will expand, likely to the point where the detail will warrant a separate page. It therefore makes sense just to start a new page now to simplify the process for the future.  This is mainly an argument against deletion. 45.44.122.106 (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.