Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Smith assault of Chris Rock at the Oscars


 * 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 expedited keep. I'm gonna be bold here and expedite this. Even when accounting for canvassed and spa users !voting keep, participants here are overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the page. I know it's only been 2 days of the usual 7, but I think there's been a ton of input already here (plus real world stuff).

The arguments could essentially be condensed to WP:RECENTISM on the delete side and WP:EVENT on keep's (although both sides used both). Obviously, no one is denying that this incident has gotten very wide publicity in the US and all over the world (countless WP:RSs). In that sense, wrt to notability (WP:N), the policy-backed argument to delete is more nuanced. However, regardless, it looks near-impossible for deletion to succeed at this juncture.

There was also not insignificant support for redirecting the page (or merging, same thing), but again, the overwhelming consensus, even at this very early stage, is to retain the standalone page. Some other arguments offered in favour of deletion were: WP:SUSTAINED (from WP:N), WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE (from the aforementioned WP:EVENT), WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOO SOON. By contrast, several of the keep commentators also invoked WP:RAPID, but more broadly as mentioned, the emphasis was placed mainly on the incident's very wide publicity (arguably, as publicized as that Oscars ceremony itself, if not more so).

I want to make it clear that I discounted quite a few keep !votes (compared to much fewer delete ones) for being subpar. For example, several users had written per above and nothing else, which I find intellectually lazy and against the spirit of WP:NOTAVOTE. Some were just plain silly, like More popular than Jesus (what? okay...). Though, what probably took the cake of silly was the IP who wanted to delete because "the only thing the United States can come up with this is [sic.] the slap article" (double what? what about Slap Mountain, that's in the US!).

Erm, anyway, so with all that taken into account, I feel confident enough to speedy da keep here. I think that, atm, much of whatever could be said largely already has been said. Still, if there is significant opposition to this early close, I am open to reversing it (though I'm likely to view it more as a procedural objection than anything). To reiterate, the discussion has gone on for about 2 days now. And while there's nothing inherently problematic in giving it another 5, again, I think it has seen enough participation and its overall direction is clear enough at this point to spare everyone from expending any further time and energy. Either way, thanks everyone for the civil discussion. El_C 12:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Will Smith assault of Chris Rock at the Oscars

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

Clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. While it is too early to make a judgement call on this event's lasting notability, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, gossip website, or newswire service. If there is no consensus to delete, I suggest a redirect to 94th Academy Awards or Will Smith. Also, that title needs a change. Which Oscars? They happen every year. KidAd •  SPEAK  16:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: To clarify, I came up with the original title of the page (and the title it carries currently), Will Smith–Chris Rock Oscars altercation, when I created the page merely as a redirect to the appropriate subsection of 94th Academy Awards. The page was made into an article by editors other than myself and without my consultation or knowledge. However, I do see the viability of the article per other pages that chronicle unprecedented moments on live television, most notably Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy. Wikipedia may not be a newspaper, but this incident is not going away; it will be remembered for years to come and has in under 48 hours become arguably the most talked about subject in this country and others.– Red Sox Fan274 (talk ~contribs) 16:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "bu this incident is not going away; it will be remembered for years to come and has in under 48 hours become arguably the most talked about subject in this country and others" is all WP:CRYSTAL. Not hearing any policy-based argument here. KidAd  •  SPEAK  16:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This was a comment, not a vote to keep, delete, or merge; “this incident is not going away” was merely an observation based on the way popular culture comports itself and how, especially in the age of social media, controversies like this can be magnified and multiplied and reach audiences that would not otherwise know about them. I am aware there was no specific policy cited; admittedly I am not good at arguing the nuances of specific policies and that is why my statement was purely a comment and not a vote one way or another.  Red Sox Fan274 (talk ~contribs) 16:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, unnecessary fork. The key points are already covered in the 94th Academy Awards article and this article includes information unrelated to the attack: "Leading up to the 2022 ceremony, the Academy Awards had been struggling with low viewership with the 93rd Academy Awards in 2021, scaled back due to COVID-19 restrictions, attracting its smallest ever television audience", irrelevant unless staged; "Jada Pinkett Smith has been married to Will Smith since 1997", congratulations, but how does this affect the event? Wikipedia is not a tabloid. (CC)  Tb hotch ™ 16:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreement. Definitely a noteworthy issue, but in a similar vein to the La La Land and Moonlight debacle, that was in the cultural zeitgeist for a few days before it diminished and is now perfectly situated in the redirect.
 * However, I may be compelled to change my opinion if the ramifications of the issue prolong for at least another week. Given the recent news of the Oscars planning on taking action, I believe that my opinion is likely to change soon. Deathbydeathstroke (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actions that still related to the AMPAS and that the 94th Academy Awards article is already covering. This is why Content forking exists. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 17:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, because this video meme will live on forever. Millions of animated GIFs on social media. Covered all around the world in good sources.Maria Gemmi (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I would recommend you to understand the WP:Purpose of Wikipedia first. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 16:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this against the purpose of Wikipedia? Shouldn't Wikipedia document everything that is famous? Maria Gemmi (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 17:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not document everything that is famous, but it does document events that receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And it is perfectly documented at 94th Academy Awards. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 17:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree, as there are details here that would overwhelm that article. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should reread both articles. The only differences are that: this article includes the whole conversation and that it develops on tangential information that was taken from many other pages (i.e., the background, Will Smith, the 89th Academy Awards, etc.). When people attempt to argument that Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy exists (and ergo this page should coexist as well) don't realize that Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show had multiple consequences, including national regulations of broadcasting. Which are going to be the consequences here? Smith getting revoked from his award at most. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and unless the real consequences of this event develop beyond an actor getting revoked from an award, this article is merely mimicking what the other article says but with little additional content that sometimes adds nothing to the page (like the ratings of the previous ceremony) or sometimes has to repeat itself to reinforce its ideas just to make the event wider than what it actually was ("The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences issued a statement the following day, condemning Smith's actions and announcing a formal review ... "In addition to AMPAS condemning the incident of Smith's violent conduct, the matter of Smith's conduct was assigned for formal review by AMPAS following the incident for the assessment of possible disciplinary action"). (CC) Tb hotch ™ 17:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Apart from that most of the other information in this article have either a political background by the writer or are just generally useless knowledge ("Anit-Biden Memes", "right wing political commentators like Ben Shapiro", "lawmakers like Andy Biggs" - are you kidding me?)
 * Do we need the reaction of every single more or less prominent person out there? It's important to catch different opinions, but we don't need the comments of 40 different people on a topic. If you want those opinions from a specific person, research it yourself and don't trash Wikipedia with it. SumriseHD (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed some of the excessive detail w/r/t the political aspects. As someone from outside the US, this seemed cherry-picked to promote a particular point of view. Some of the sources were not unreliable per se, but the way they were selected and editorialised by Wikipedians seemed to be POV-pushing. Plus, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This incident will have a lasting place in meme history, and it therefore the article is valid. Yobbin (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, not https://knowyourmeme.com. SumriseHD (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To comment on this thread: Yes, Wikipedia is NOT KnowYourMeme nor a meme respiratory, nor is it a gossip journal. It's an encyclopedia at heart, but in some ways, it has grown to cover more than just an encyclopedia with its coverage of the most notable internet memes (think Rickrolling and Pepe the Frog). This is just me, but I think of Wikipedia as more of a gateway to the rest of the internet. If you want to continue to read current events, head to BBC or CBS News; to read about a certain fandom, head to Wikia; for more nerdy and academic stuff, head to Citizendium; and for the motherload of memes, head to KnowYourMeme. I would suggest that even though this is a bit of a current event, unless no action is taken or AMPAS doesn't do anything drastic, it should remain given its status in popular culture, its coverage whose degree has even temporarily eclipsed the war in Ukraine, and the ongoing Will vs. Chris debate on the internet, not to mention the hundreds of notable and reliable sources covering "the slap heard 'round the world". InvadingInvader (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's things like WP:SUSTAINED and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to consider. Brief bursts of coverage do not necessarily make an event notable. So, the internet still talking about it 48 hours later not inherently prove it has notability. Per especially RunningTiger below, there's a lot of memes and pop culture mainstays from award shows—shout-out to the Moonlight mix-up meme template and the brief resurgence this year of "Adele Dazeem" (notice that this is a redirect) this year—but those don't have articles. We don't decide everything that has a lot of coverage is notable, otherwise we'd have dedicated articles for things like Retirement of Tom Brady. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  04:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: The title for this article was quickly reverted. As for the incident in itself, I would say that it is already notable in itself. There is precedent for this at the article for the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, although similar incidents such as Kanye West at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards and the Moonlight/La La Land best picture mix-up do not exist. Painting17 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See, unlike the others mentioned, the Super Bowl controversy actually had serious ramifications. If you look at the history, a lot of broadcasting rules were changed as a result. Meanwhile, the other two you mentioned were pretty much just media gossip. I personally think that unless this has serious ramifications to the level of the super bowl incident, then it should have a article. At this point, that seems unlikely. Sea Cow (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep; the incident has since become a major piece of news sometimes even eclipsing the war in Ukraine. Given the amount of reactions to the incident and the debate surrounding "Will vs Chris", it should be that this page is kept. If it ends up being deleted, though, the article as is should be completely merged into and expanded within the 94th Oscars article. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a major incident and deserves its own article. --Nyescum (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is notable by itself and most coverage related to the Oscar ceremony as a whole is about this, not the Oscars themselves. This sort of disruption is rare at this event. This would overwhelm the article about the Oscars if it were merged. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No title change is needed unless Will Smith decides to assault Chris Rock at a future Oscars ceremony. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you provide policies that support this fork? (CC) Tb hotch ™ 17:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with the premise of your question that this is a "fork". 331dot (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * From FAQ/Forking.
 * What is a fork?
 * Copying all or part of Wikipedia, and developing it independently of the original, is forking.
 * You can disagree with my premise, but not with the concept. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 17:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how WP:NOTNEWS applies. This is not an original news report, not written as a news report, and is not celebrity gossip.  RECENTISM would apply to the war in Ukraine, but we talk about that. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, feel free to argument from policies and guidelines, not from what you feel. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing I have said is based on what I feel, but based on the significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which show that this particular aspect of the Oscars is notable by itself, just as the Super Bowl haltime show incidents are. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:GNG, specifically "Significant Coverage". Given the amount of coverage that this has received, and given the YouTube record that was broken by The Guardian covering the uncensored version of the incident, and how AMPAS has not resolved the incident completely, I argue the GNG supports this article's inclusion, at least until if AMPAS drops its investigation InvadingInvader (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Simply because this incident went so massively viral so fast all over the world and has inspired so much debate and discussion and so many responses to it. I honestly believe this incident will be remembered for years to come and thus its article should be retained. After all, this wasn't just a typical celebrity scandal, it was a globally-renowned superstar actor with a largely positive reputation assaulting a host on live TV at a major annual awards ceremony. It was really sudden and shocking and changed how a lot of people view Will Smith overnight. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The three paragraphs about the incident currently present at 94th Academy Awards seems to adequately cover the topic as much as is needed on Wikipedia, and doesn't take up an undue amount of the article. I could be open to changing my mind if there are further developments, but Smith has apologized and there's no reason to think there will be much more to this incident. Orser67 (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * AMPAS is currently investigating; if no further developments are made or if AMPAS does nothing, I would support merging the article in, but until then and/or if AMPAS takes more drastic actions, I would keep for now. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: I'm not gonna lose sleep over the article being deleted, but I feel the nature of the incident (an on-screen physical assault) separates it from similar incidents enough to be notable for its own article. JellyMan9001 (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep because Will Smith is a notable figure and so are his public actions. Furthermore, the Academy Awards are watched by millions of people around the world, so what happens at them is notable as well, especially if there is some form of an assault taking place. Considering the just scrutiny in Hollywood over individuals like Harvey Weinstein and Roman Polanski, it is of public interest to keep this page with regards to Smith's actions — Smith's actions are unprecedented at the Academy Awards. If this page were to be deleted, I recommend moving most of this information to the Will Smith article since there already is a subsection dedicated to this incident within his article.Moviebuff323 (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons provided above by User:331dot, User:JellyMan9001, etc. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is better covered at the Oscar ceremony article. While this has received a lot of coverage, this is unlikely to be WP:SUSTAINED, a key criterion for notable topics. Many of the keep votes ignore Wikipedia policies, so therefore the close should not just be based on vote counts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not ignored Wikipedia policy, nor have others who cite the overwhelming coverage in independent reliable sources that establishes WP:GNG is met. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Unlikely"? Based on what? We already know that this is going to continue to receive coverage as the Academy tries to decide on a decision. If anyone is ignoring Wikipedia policy, it's you, as your !vote is based purely off of speculation about what will or will not happen in the future. And speculation that runs contrary to the overwhelming amount of evidence, at that. Mlb96 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The incident is notable enough for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSecondComing10 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is very well known, received significant media coverage and other reasons mentioned above. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment While I do believe the 94th Academy Awards article does a good job, you can’t say it’s not news. It is news. International news. If George H. W. Bush’s dislike of broccoli can have an article, I don’t see why one of the biggest pop culture moments of the decade so far can’t either. Especially that this is an unprecedented moment in Academy Awards history. Trillfendi (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Recentism and WP:Sustained Just because it's in the news right now it will likely not last and be notable. Qwv (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Article well sourced, per Moviebuff323 and I do think it's notable enough to be its own article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Recentism Mardetanha (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Nah coz like don’t violate and take ongoing events away. Seeing this as the youth would encourage and popularize Wikipedia further. TapticInfo (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I Beg Everyone To KEEP To all the Wikipedians reading this, I plead that we keep this article due to just the relevance within the youth and its insane popularity generating numerous memes about it. It should be something that we can all look back on even on a site like Wikipedia. TapticInfo (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the most viewed video in 24 hours, that's pretty monumental. Baby shark has a wikipedia page about it. Why not this? It's way more influential too. Helpingpeopleyay (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Recentism everything that needs to be said can be said in the awards ceremony article MrMarmite (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect Although it immediately generated substantial coverage, it is still a single event and its consequences can be relatively easily summarized in the main article. WP:RECENTISM definitely applies here. If larger, long-term consequences become evident (as with the Super Bowl controversy article), then perhaps it should be split off. Ovinus (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This event is more notable than the 94th Academy Awards it happened at. All the "delete" arguments above can be used to merge all of Category:Academy Awards ceremonies into a single article, but of course we don't do that. The event made headlines, triggered discussions about insult comedy and violence and it's well sourced. This isn't "recentism". Do you remember the 76th Academy Awards or the 79th Academy Awards? What lasting influence did those have? Exactly, that's more "recentism" than this is. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Excepting that every ceremony is unique on its own and we don't create separated articles on each of their controversies. Just because you claim something is trivial |79th_Academy_Awards it doesn't mean it is trivial. And now that you are merging all the "delete" arguments, why don't we merge all the "keep" arguments: It should be kept because of the memes/for the lolz/because it is well-sourced (deliberately ignoring that this was copied from the parent article)/because we don't know if it is notable, but maybe, and if it is notable we already have an article, but if not it should be merged into the parent page with the same existing content. I find the last argument the funniest because people are practically supporting the article to be draftified "until we know if there are consequences" but without making it a draft. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 20:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the most viewed video in 24 hours, baby shark has a page, that was a meme. Jhonny johnny yes papa is a meme and has a page about it. Why not this? It's historical anyway. Helpingpeopleyay (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 94th Academy Awards Already covered in detail at the articles Will Smith and 94th Academy Awards. I agree with the nominator that having this as a standalone article violates WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. If we had articles for every time a celebrity says or does something, we'd become a gossip site rather than an encyclopaedia. I don't think that's what we're after here. Helen (💬📖) 19:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Will Smith slapping Chris Rock is not gossip because it happened on live television and was later confirmed by multiple outlets, including the AMPAS, that the event was not scripted. Gossip is more like hearsay, which this is not. This incident is no different than the 2004 Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, which has its own article. Moviebuff323 (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't need to trash Wikipedia with useless articles that could be easily embedded in other articles which in this case would also make it easier to find, as the title currently doesn't even include the year of the Oscars.
 * The important information is easily put into 3-4 paragraphs. Nobody wants to know about "right wing political commentators" and "Anti-Biden Memes" on Twitter and how many views some videos by the Guardian got. We also don't need everybody who commented about this in the article. There are nearly 20 people linked in the article. Nobody cares. Wikipedia is NOT a sensationalist tabloid, the Super Bowl controversy shouldn't have an article either and two wrongs don't make a right. SumriseHD (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the information in this article, condensed into 3-4 paragraphs, embedded in other articles would make it easier to find. If that were the final decision rendered here, my recommendation would be to embed the information in the Will Smith article and the 94th Academy Awards article. However, as noted in WP:RAPID, we should not rush to delete this article because the future implications of it upon the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) could be farther reaching. It's too soon to tell. We must wait to see what happens because the consequences are still unfolding. MovieBuff (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In support of my last point above, David Rubin, the AMPAS President, issued a subsequent letter to Academy members this evening, noting that the official process would "take a few weeks" to determine an appropriate action for Smith. MovieBuff (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Allow time for the notability of the event to emerge per WP:RAPID. The present article is well sourced and meets WP:GNG. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Although it is on recent news, and could we do now if it will become something like WP:Recentism, it did bring up questions in the news.  The questions being: Was what Chris Rock said scripted or Chris Rock just came up with what he said on stage?  Apparently it was not and this was something that was not staged and Chris Rock got actually slapped live on television.    Further more, there are people saying that this incident might actually put a dent on whether or not Will Smith get any Academy Awards in the future, as the Academy is taking it very seriously and has already condemned Smith and started and investigation on the incident.  It also started to cause one-liners and comedians to start to worry due to the incident that was caught live.  Because of the nature of this, I do not think this is something that will be forgotten within a week or month, especially due to the other criticism the 94th Academy Awards have, this incident would be repeatedly revived in some way or another.    Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * BIG KEEP NOW ... Its now not going to go away Political people apparently want to use the incident to their advantage, with some being right-wingers and MTG even rooting for what Smith did.   Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Update Apparently the incident would probably be remembered not for the event itself, or what poltical pundits say, but rather how it would affect the commedy industry in the future. This can be clearly seen in the video segment after the slap, on this article page:  Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: As has been stated above, this is obviously too early to decide that it's already notable enough for its own article. Whether that notability proves out will be decided in due time, at which point the article may be recreated, but for now this does not meet WP's standards. And comparing this to the Super Bowl Halftime Show incident article is silly given that article was started right after the incident back in 2004, and WP standards have changed drastically since that time. QuietHere (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep An obviously notable event in Hollywood/entertainment world with significant ink spilled over it in reliable, hefty sources. Arguments citing WP:NOTNEWS, per usual, appear to have no clue what that poorly-named policy means. We exclude routine and original coverage, not noteworthy (newsworthy) events. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The event has proven to be extremely notable, at least for the time being. Will it be remembered for years to come? Probably not. But I think it deserves to stay just for the sheer amount of media coverage it got, along with how far it spread by word of mouth. Nearly everyone I've interacted with in the past few days has talked about it. That's not something that happens very often. Aluminite (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's too early to decide, we should keep this until the right time, not get rid of it and recreate it later. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per Alexis Jazz. The most notable event in the history of the Academy Awards. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Was inarguably more discussed than this year's actual ceremony itself, as well as previous Academy Awards ceremonies mentioned above like the 76th and 79th. If it's an topic notability issue, why is there a Wikipedia page for George H.W. Bush hating broccoli? Or Lady Gaga's meat dress? Complaining about this being separate from the 94th article? Why does every single Simpsons episode have a page? The Guardian broke a record on YouTube with this one and many critics working for reliable sources support the idea that this was one of the, if not the most awkward moment in television history. At the very least wait and see for a few months before knowing for sure whether it's notable or not. The 2019 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak was arguably not notable enough at the time of its creation, until it became one of the largest articles on the website. If it's about how bad or how realistically crucial the topic is, 9/11 was more notable for being the turning point in the American people's attitudes and laws, safety, ways of life, etc, rather than the amount of people who were physically permanently damaged or lost from it, which were fewer than the Indian earthquake that same year. Really, these are just random examples of how the situation can look entirely different from another view and oftentimes what carries the topic most in discussion is cultural relevance/prevalence and legacy. This is something that could've ruined(/could ruin?) Will Smith's career, one of the most globally acclaimed actors of all time. It is absolutely not just gossip as numerous reliable sources have written about it, and you can observe that from digging online for just ten minutes or so that enough have done so to warrant a separate article, especially when the information for this one would "overbear" the 94th article like some other voters have said. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is as notable as 9/11. Awesome! (I know you didn't say it, but this is the level of discussion at this point). (CC) Tb hotch ™ 21:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on "these are just random examples of how the situation can look entirely different from another view and oftentimes what carries the topic most in discussion is cultural relevance/prevalence and legacy." Whether what I said about 9/11 was rambunctious or not, (and it was) consider everything else and move on. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your argument does not reflect an understanding of what notability is. Notability is established by reliable source coverage. Here, it is substantial. That is the only relevant factor, not personal opinions or predictions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on "It is absolutely not just gossip as numerous reliable sources have written about it, and you can observe that from digging online for just ten minutes or so that enough have done so to warrant a separate article." and "Many critics working for reliable sources support the idea that this was one of the, if not the most awkward moment in television history," the latter of which can be found with just a look at the references. It's not like unreliable sources are very welcome there on an average article, anyway, right? Think of it that way. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tbhotch: Nice strawmanism. Not only is nobody comparing Smith slapping Rock to a terrorist event which killed nearly 3,000 people, but that is not even the point of what they were trying to say. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, don't waste my time with pointless pings. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 02:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: the incident has taken a life of its own, separate from the 94th Oscars. People will be talking about this for years to come. Yekshemesh (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 94th Academy Awards: per WP:TOOSOON. –– FormalDude  talk  21:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. This incident passes GNG and has achieved notability independent of the 94th Academy Awards. Davey2116 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Indisputably notable. Tons of reporting from various reliable sources. Internetronic (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete (and maybe redirect to 94th Academy Awards) per WP:NOTNEWS. We don't need a WP:CFORK of something that happened at a ceremony that already has its own page (and covers this event there). A whole separate page's worth feels like undue weight. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY KEEP PER ABOVE. VERY NOTABLE. Urbanracer34 (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hoping the closer is able to ignore the pile on of keep !votes that are entirely unjustified. –– FormalDude  talk  21:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How's that? Their views should be discounted because you don't agree? 331dot (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, their views should be discounted because they're not justified. As I said. "VERY NOTABLE" is not a justification for keeping an article, especially in this context. –– FormalDude  talk  23:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And I think the other viewpoint should be discounted as it's not justified. So there you are. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I justified my comment with a policy, but go off. –– FormalDude  talk  23:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As did I, and I also discussed the other argument. I'm happy to disagree, but nothing should be discounted. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said your comment should be discounted. I said the unjustified ones should be. –– FormalDude  talk  23:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:TOOSOON supports what you're saying here? The only part of that essay (not a guideline or a policy) even mentioning events is . Do you believe the current sourcing on this event is insufficient to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT? If so, those are the guidelines you should be citing. Saying "Redirect per WP:TOOSOON" without any justification isn't much better than saying "Keep per WP:N". Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep This is clearly a notable event with enduring press coverage. This incident will be remembered for years to come, unlike events from most other recent ceremonies. Barney1995 (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is clearly a notable incident with lots of information on. A good example of precedence: the article "Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy" which too is about a very short, couple-second incident during a larger broadcast (Super Bowl, Oscars) that became a major cultural moment on its own. Holidayruin (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- should we decide in six months that this article really is a symptom of WP:RECENTISM (which we shouldn't be in the business of determining now), then we can always merge or delete it then. There's no deadline. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above we should to be keep this article also is clearly notable event.  HurricaneEdgar    23:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Statistics. Currently the consensus seems to be making about 28 separate positions for KEEP, and about 8 for DELETE (with or without redirect to Academy Awards article); that's roughly 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 to keep the new article. The daily page count spike for "Will Smith" biography article was at about 1.5 million page views yesterday, assuming that the daily page count spike for this new article today might resemble that once it is posted. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well this was quite the conversation starter! apologies for not consulting before I created this article. In all honesty, I was bored in quarantine and half-expected it to be a WP:SPEEDY. But I also hoped it might start a broader discussion around what belongs on Wikipedia. For what it's worth,  and others, I think the case that this article breaches WP:RECENT is strong. Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, for example, was not created as an article until one month after the incident. But the role of the Internet has certainly changed since 2004. A lot of the Keep votes don't necessarily reflect current Wikipedia policy, but lean into the idea of a modern online encyclopedia keeping up with the times. For instance, I feel the 50+ million views within 24 hours, accumulated on just one of many YouTube videos of the event, is notable. Unfortunately I didn't see this reflected in many media outlets, so we have to be careful of WP:NOR there. With all this in mind, I won't swing my vote either way, but I will watch with interest; this is a great case study in how Wikipedia responds to viral events as our lives become increasingly online. Neegzistuoja (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- unimportant shenanigans it may be, but it's notable;  Better to cover it here than let it overwhelm the Smith BLP or the article on the ceremony.  Feoffer (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, with the caveat that notability should be reevaluated in ~6 months. Covering this event in the full depth it deserves would be WP:UNDUE in 94th Academy Awards. It's not possible to know with absolute certainty if this will have sufficient lasting notability in six months, but that, despite what some comments here say, isn't what WP:CRYSTALBALL is about. This event has already happened and details about it are verifiable through reliable sources. If this turns out to not have significant lasting notability, then redirecting after the news flurry has passed will be non-controversial and clearly the right choice, but as of now not keeping this would be to do our readers a disservice. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above.Valkyrie Red (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this nomination is invalid, because the link to the page to be deleted is a redirect to the actual page. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that doesn't matter. We uphold the spirit of the law, not the letter of it. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per above.  —❑Jamesluiz102❑—  (talk)  00:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. As others have mentioned, the 94th Academy Awards article and Will Smith's biography already cover the important details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwainNeverSaidThat (talk • contribs) 00:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above comments. This incident most definitely meets notability criteria.Spilia4 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge with the existing section under the 94th Academy Awards page. Already covered extensively there and under the relevant people's personal pages. bachwiz18 (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Kid Ad's allegation does not consider proportion, balance or due weight. Per WP:RECENTISM, "Over-use of recent material does not by itself mean that an article should be deleted." Is anyone asking if this topic is of lasting importance? Of course not. This Afd request has no merit. Kire1975 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: As mentioned before, there is no need for an entire article about a moment that lasted 30 seconds and will be forgotten relatively quickly. It is already adequately covered at 2022 Academy Awards. Mannysoloway (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agreed with the violations of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. The write up on the main oscars is plenty concerning the event, I see no positives that this article provides that is not already articulated there.Yeoutie (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as it's a bit long for the main Oscars article, with nothing obvious to be removed. Against the current (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Oscars are a widely watched event globally, and this assault is unprecedented. There are many reliable sources that provide reliable information, and the information is too big to be all included in the Oscars page itself. 2A00:23C8:4384:FB00:11AC:AD70:5A27:A8F (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable event with major consequences in the aftermath. Provides incident in further detail than the articles of the event and involved subjects. DrewieStewie (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the section. Imo, it should be proven it isn't RECENTISM before it's split. There's no current reason for the split. Everything of relevance in this article is already covered at the main, everything else is just minutiae, overdetail, and cruft. If there is lasting significance for this, recreate it in six months rather than the other way around. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lots of comments to the effect of "it would be undue at the main article" but no actual pointing to what in the dedicated article isn't adequately covered at the Awards article; we don't need to list everyone who reacted, this article spends WAY too much time analyzing why people thought it was scripted (that is WP:UNDUE), and what their comments were. Current coverage in the main article is three lean paragraphs, and what in the article I think can be merged is like maybe another seven sentences at most. Lots of comments of "everyone is talking about it" and "it got a lot of attention" which isn't a policy-based argument at all. Lots of predicting that this will become important in the future, an applying CRYSTAL in the reverse of what it should be; the onus is on the article to prove that this HAS lasting significance at this time. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to main oscars page,  IF  no serious repurcussions. I currently see this article as failing WP:SUSTAINED. To be perfectly honest, this is another blip in the media's two day news cycle. In a week, nobody is going to talk about this. At this point, no serious repercussions have come of this incident. If there is a serious repercussion, such as a removal of the Oscar given to Smith, charges being filed, or new broadcasting rules, than I could see the case for this being a article. At this point, everything here could be easily placed in the main article, without it being to crowded. Minor repercussions such as a small 1K fine, or a half hearted statement really don't cut it to WP:SUSTAINED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sea Cow (talk • contribs)
 * Redirect to the main Oscars article because it's already covered there, and doesn't meet the requirements for WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visualman (talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing else from the ceremony received as much attention as this, let alone any ceremony from the past decade or so. --Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very notable, well sourced, and the article is already big enough that it doesn't make sense to merge, seems better to have as it's own article imo. Mike989 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes GNG.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the most notable Oscars incidents ever. X-Editor (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The incident is very notable and deserves to have its own article. `~HelpingWorld~` (👻👻) 03:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication of lasting significance. The incident can be (and is) covered in the relevant Academy Awards article. WWGB (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete – The incident seems notable now, but there are plenty of comparable controversies that do not have their own article. For an Oscars example: #OscarsSoWhite was a major deal at the Oscars seven years ago, but it's now just a subsection of that ceremony's article. Or how about announcing the wrong Best Picture winner? That was a major SNAFU, but now, that's also a subsection of a Oscars ceremony article. For a celebrity dispute at an awards show, remember Kanye West interrupting Taylor Swift? Also a subsection, not a standalone article. There are plenty of incidents that felt momentous at the time but faded, and this seems most similar to those. The only similar case of a celebrity controversy at a live event might be the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, and that had a major impact beyond just the involved celebrities – it shaped public attitudes, led to broadcasting changes, and even changed the public lexicon. This incident has failed to demonstrate that level of significance, and therefore, I think we should follow precedent set by the other examples and keep the discussion of the incident at the 94th Academy Awards article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're right, then why not revisit this in six months? Right now, we can't know if this is something worthy of an article or not, and we won't know until we have some benefit of hindsight. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A topic should demonstrate lasting notability before an article is created about it, not the other way around. Otherwise, you could justify any article – for instance, I might be notable one day, so should we have an article written about me now? (A bit of an extreme example, yes, but it's to show why flipping the requirements is bad.) And it's not like the sources are going to vanish in that time, right? If, in six months, the topic is still notable, it could be recreated then. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If we're not sure whether the topic will have sustained notability, WP:Crystal requires that we should retain the article, not make the assumption that the current level of notability will not be sustained. The burden of proof is on the nominator. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  10:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Where at WP:CRYSTAL does it say that we should assume that a topic will have sustained notability? My understanding of the notability guidelines is that sustained notability must be demonstrated first, shifting the burden of proof to those in favor of keeping. From WP:SUSTAINED: "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability" (emphasis in original). As I interpret it, this means that the sustained notability must be demonstrated first, before an article's creation. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My argument is that we shouldn't assume that the current flurry of coverage will disappear, and to do so requires that we act as a crystal ball. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * RunningTiger123, as for Kanye West interrupting Taylor Swift, if there's more that could be written about that (with sources) beyond what's in the section to create a substantial article, I'd say that one should qualify for its own article as well. Same for OscarsSoWhite, really, possibly even more so. Wikipedia may not be a newspaper (that's Wikinews), but it is as much a historical record as an encyclopedia. Having been largely forgotten at some point does not matter, everything and everyone will be forgotten at some point. Announcing the wrong Best Picture winner was just a case of human error. There isn't much more to say about that beyond what the section already says. That incident didn't feel "momentous" either, not even at the time. A major fuckup, but as the saying goes, shit happens. a bad example indeed. Many people believe this incident is notable while nobody believes you are. As a general rule: in case of doubt, there is literally no downside to just leaving something up and (if still believed to be needed by then) revisit it after the dust has settled. We are not restricted by paper pages and gallons of ink. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should clarify what I meant by my latter example – my point was that arguing that a topic might have sustained notability in the future, instead of showing sustained notability already, is not a precedent I want to set. As to the "general rule" that leaving something up is the right move... is there a policy to support that? (There easily could be, but I've never seen one.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * RunningTiger123, as I'm not familiar with all the policies and all their details and how all of them are supposed to be interpreted either I can't quite answer your last question. But what I was saying was this: when a vast majority of established editors agrees that a subject is notable, it's notable. Even if by the letter of the policy it isn't, as WP:IAR takes over at that point. When a vast majority of established editors agrees a subject isn't notable, we can delete/redirect it. Even if by the letter of the policy it would qualify as a notable subject. This is probably somewhat less common as subjects becoming notable in unforeseen ways is less predictable than a subject failing to become notable despite technically meeting the criteria. Also, having an article on something may improve Wikipedia while deleting an article due to notability concerns (spam etc is different) is usually not a significant improvement as the article can simply be ignored. It doesn't slow Wikipedia down, it doesn't confuse anyone. In both cases of the outcome being in disagreement with the letter of the policy, updating policy should be considered. The third case is when there is disagreement among established editors about the notability of a subject. If the passing of some time is expected to result in a clearer outcome, I say allow for that time to pass. No slippery slope here, no article about RunningTiger123 or Alexis Jazz: all I'm saying is that deletion discussions don't always require a binary outcome. Putting a pin in it is also a valid outcome. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep As previously stated, it passes GNG and has achieved notability independent of the awards ceremony itself. Willsteve2000(talk) 21:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 04:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Anonymouseditor2k19. Schierbecker (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:EVENT and WP:RAPID. Easily passes WP:GNG, has received more than enough reliable media coverage to attain notability in its own right, and shows strong potential for continued coverage and lasting relevance. As others have suggested, it can be revisited in about six months to better guage the latter of the points I've listed, but for the time being it's a keeper.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that this is notable enough, due to the amount of coverage it (sorry have got to go now, will finish this later) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraminxsolver (talk • contribs) 05:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was a huge culutral moment, getting hundreds of millions of views across the internet. It also started tons of diffrent dicussions about the implicet meaning behind the events that transpired and why. There's also a factor of race, that being a instance of violence between two famous Black men with mostly white people commenting on it. Overall it was a big incident that was seen immediantly around the world and started an appropriate level of dicussion. Gordfather69 (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is like More popular than Jesus. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  05:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as a clear example of WP:Recentism. Everything can be said on the page about the 94th Academy Awards. NotImmutable (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Very encouraging to see that users with 6 edits already have a strong opinion about Wikipedia policies. Just sayin', you don't see that a lot. <span id="Alexis_Jazz:1648625180178:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Will_Smith_assault_of_Chris_Rock_at_the_Oscars" class="FTTCmt">— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is one of the surprising and rarest incidents in the history of Academy. Hence reaching it out to people in the future is necessary. Souryadeep630 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait. Nominate the article a few weeks later and see what happens. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 94th Academy Awards. We can improve the description on the Will Smith-Chris Rock altercation section, but for now, I don't think an article is inherently necessary. The7Guy (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * keep it provides WP:EVENT. We can't ignore extensive coverage of resources, everyone is talking about it. 3000MAX (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was one of the most notable and widely-covered things to have happened in recent Oscar history. — Golden  call me maybe? 08:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Netural: While I am not a fan of the article, its inclusion or removal isn't a problem in my opinion. I do want to say that I do not agree that this is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS.  For the first part of WP:NOTNEWS, this isn't original reporting nor a primary source.  For the second part and the one that needs to be focused on, it should be clear that this wasn't a routine event.  You had one person physically strike another person during a ceremony, all of which are already notable.  Numerous parties have had to release statements about the incident: the organization, the labor union, the police department with jurisdiction, and the main person involved.  There is a current investigation into the incident to see if repercussions are needed and modified images of the event itself are being reported on.  The article in not a news report.  Finally, parts three and four are respectively about articles on individuals in an event and about the biography of an individual's article, neither of which matter here.  --Super Goku V (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (Side-note for KidAd): Most award ceremony articles do not list the year, but by ordinal number. Given that it is consistent and precise, I don't believe that such a move is needed. -- Super Goku V (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and redirect to the academy award page. Clear content fork and within a month like most furore will be forgotten.  Probably will be a snow keep because of the pile on comments, then quietly deleted in a year's time when they have moved on to the next shiny thing. WCM email 08:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Amount of independent commentary and media coverage, especially as a particular contender for list of "most infamous" Oscars incidents, would seem to grant this lasting notability in its own right. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Will Smith-Chris Rock slapping altercation has become a big piece of news. It's become quite famous. I believe we should keep it because it's one of the most famous articles as of March 2022. Magik 3099 (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 94th Academy Awards and have a subsection. It reminds me of the Kanye/Taylor Swift incident, which is just referenced in 2009 MTV Video Music Awards. No need for a standalone article. RoyalObserver (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the situation here is different. What Kanye did was wrong and attention-seeking but he wasn't physically violent. Also, this was considerably more shocking because it was Will Smith - a really powerful and respected actor who has gained a reputation for a classy and family-friendly persona, having starred in one of the biggest sitcoms ever and in many huge blockbusters - suddenly assaulting and loudly swearing at a host and then the ceremony carrying on without him being escorted out, and then Smith receiving a standing ovation despite him not apologising properly and arguably attempting to justify his actions. It's activated a lot of discussion and debate and news coverage of it significantly eclipsed the entire ceremony. The immensely viral nature of it as well is article-worthy; it's similar to the Howard Dean scream incident where him shouting one word resulted in so much instant media attention and reporting that it killed his presidential campaign. Smith assaulting Rock won't kill his career but it's definitely stained it and made this particular Academy Awards infamous. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you, . Magik 3099 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as per RoyalObserver as well as other comments in favour of deletion/redirect. TheScrubby (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's simply too much to discuss than would fit as a subsection of 94th Academy Awards, and the incident is more notable than even the awards themselves; passing WP:GNG is an understatement. I understand the comparisons to 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, but as a practical matter there's too much to say than would be reasonable to fit in the 94th Academy Awards. Endwise (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep there are a large number of relevant details and stuff, too much to just be a section on the 94th Oscars page, and this has got a ton of attention and coverage independent from articles going over the whole awards event. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 12:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep notable incident that warrants an article. &mdash;Jonny Nixon (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is simply too much to include about the incident on the 94th Oscars page and the incident is clearly notable enough to include an article. This one event has been talked about more than the rest of the 94th Oscars itself. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete this nonsense. The only thing the United States can come up with this is the slap article. Remove this nonsense ASAP 202.9.46.26 (talk) — 202.9.46.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, because this was an very notable event and rightfully deserves its own page. Having its own subsection within the 2022 Oscars page will detract from the information regarding the event itself.  This incident has taken on a life of its own and lots of new information has come out since the slap.  It is an ever changing story and absolutely deserves its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatCollectibleDude (talk • contribs)
 * Redirect to 94th Academy Awards. I do not see that this incident is notable enough for a discrete article - I highly doubt that it will generate the sustained coverage required. firefly  ( t · c ) 14:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep it has received enough coverage to be a standalone article. WP:EVENT --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  14:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It should do fine within the Awards article; however, it has gained significant press coverage and it may be relevant on its own. --Bedivere (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: there is no reason to delete and fold this into the 94th Academy Awards. Paradoxically, this got international coverage well beyond the Oscars awards themselves. The quality of the article is decent imo, reflecting the amount of substantial international coverage of the event. You could not possibly fold all the kb into the 94th Oscars or the Smith article without suffering from undue, and we would therefore have to omit much of the detail RSs have provided. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep / Snowball Keep: C'mon.  Hard to believe this is even in question.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning delete: This is a notable event, sure, but there really isn't much to the event yet. Others on this page have cited the Janet Jackson incident as an event that warrants this page remaining, but the issue is that the incident continued to be relevant for years after it happened, even resulting in a phrase that continues to be used to this very day. The Chris Rock/Will Smith incident has only been relevant for a few days, so I'd recommend deleting, but if the incident continues to be relevant in 2023, it should be brought back. DolimiccanDragon (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not sure why there's even a debate about this. It was a very notable event in popular culture. Someguy432 (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Having a dedicated article allows for more detail than would be permitted if our coverage were folded into another article, due to weight issues. Le Marteau (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep ~ AntisocialRyan (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. My crystal ball just broke, so I can't see whether this is going to generate sustained coverage in the future. Without that, this can be a footnote in the bios of the two persons involved and/or in the Oscars article. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL doesn't even apply here because the event has already happened; I'd recommend actually reading that policy before citing it. Besides, all evidence points towards it continuing to generate further coverage. Just admit that you don't like it instead of presenting such flimsy arguments. Mlb96 (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The slap got way more attention than the awards themselves. There have been hundreds of news articles on it. When people look back on the 94th Oscars, this is the one thing they’ll remember. It deserves its own Wikipedia page. Cpotisch (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would understand the "delete" angle if it was just one of those things that pops up for a day, like that "break the internet" selfie Ellen tried at the Oscars that one time. But this is only a few notches below if someone set themselves on fire on stage at the Oscars in terms of noteworthiness. It's well beyond business as usual.69.119.69.199 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This might be similar to the Kanye Taylor incident in 2009, where everyone still has this in the back of their heads when discussing these two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.82.51.127 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep This article is amazing. Look at how well it is structured and sourced. Whoever was involved in it has done an amazing job. The incident is widely known. No question. Strong keep--109.112.8.79 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic has gained very significant media coverage from various established outlets. I don't have the time to list sources I found here, but the ones already listed in the article just already gives it a notability pass. A separate article seems to be the best choice as the topic branches off into other topics such as being involved in the most-viewed, non-music, non-trailer video on YouTube, its impact on the Oscars, and its reactions ranging from celebrities and corporations. Although, I understand that this topic might seem like sort of a "trend" currently and will barely get any further coverage in the future, but I don't really think that's too much of a concern as all events and trends die out at some point. As long as the topic gets coverage from numerous reliable sources, I'm cool with it. Sparkl talk 18:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep – You don't need WP:CRYSTAL when an event has become so large in the public eye (even internationally) overnight. If such a newsworthy event could fade out of the public memory, history would not be what it is. Although the news is along the lines of celebrity gossip / tabloid / entertainment news, most of those trivial events circulate and die out. It may be too early to say for certain with 100% clarity that this event will WP:SUSTAINED and it probably irks some, as it does me to an extent, that so much is said about our culture's focus on an event of such nature, but it is what it is and it deserves an article. UserTwoSix (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: This has eclipsed the Oscars itself, and has drawn attention as its own incident. As other editors have mentioned, this would be totally undue to include in the main article for the 94th Academy Awards, or Will Smith's main article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - Well written, well-sourced, and receiving major news coverage. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:RECENTISM. This event is comparable to Mike Tyson biting Holyfield's ear off but we don't have an article separate from Evander Holyfield vs. Mike Tyson II for the bite. Transcendence (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * because that does have its own article: the boxing match where that took place. Its a specific detail about the specific match. This, on the other hand, is a significant incident and scandal that just so happened to occur on live television at the Oscar’s of all places, resulting in its magnification in significance and it being a spectacle on its own separate from the Oscars. DrewieStewie (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just like the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, this event has garnered more recognition than the ceremony itself. Most people hadn't even known the Oscars had happened until the slapping incident. ChrisBungle (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - This incident is very notable and should have its own article. Will629 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect - WP:RECENTISM. While notable, tihs is certainly not something that deserves its own article. Notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia for sure, but the implications of this are merely subject to speculation. Until a consensus has been reached on the actual impact of the event, this topic should be left in the original Oscars page. zer0talk 20:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as the amount of coverage given is beyond what a flash-in-the-pan moment would receive. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 21:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, the event has been blown way out of proportion, and once more information comes in and the article is edited and cleaned up, it will stand on it's own. This is not Kanye's 2009 incident, because this is an actual violent attack that disrupted the ceremony, and could lead to further discourse. Keep the article. AlienChex (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This event is extremely notable, it's been covered in a massive amount of reliable sources and has had a huge impact. Almost nobody even recognized the Oscars happened until the slap. Fijipedia (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect to Oscars Page, It's notable but I believe it can just be mentioned under 94th Academy Awards instead. Swagging (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Statistics. Currently the consensus seems to be making about 81 separate positions for KEEP, and about 21 for DELETE (with or without redirect to Academy Awards article); that's roughly 4-to-1 to keep the new article. The daily page count spike for the associated Academy Awards article was at about 1.5 million page views two days ago and down to 600K yesterday. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE. If you leave out all the !votes just yelling WP:ITSNOTABLE, those stats will look a bit different. --Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And if you leave out the !votes just yelling WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE then the ratio would be 100% keep to 0% delete. Mlb96 (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Worth a reminder that AfD isn't a straw poll. A notable number of keep !votes are simply "everyone is talking about it" or "it created a lot of memes", which are not policy- or guideline-based arguments. A significant number of the keeps do make proper arguments, but the ones saying keep just on the basis of "it's really famous right now" do not have the same weight as their properly articulated brethren. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you leave out the people who want to remove it because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that also changes things. It's pretty evident that this is notable and should be kept (it's also evident that if delete somehow wins, this will result in a deletion review). -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There aren't significant WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Lots of delete !votes saying WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTAL and WP:(not)SUSTAINED, which you are free to disagree with as not strong arguments, but that's absolutely not the same as "I don't like it" or "this is a silly article" or "it's stupid to include". ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any compelling arguments as to why this event isn't notable. WP:TOOSOON refers to events that don't yet have reliable sources (this does) and WP:CRYSTAL refers to predicted events (this event has already happened). WP:RECENT discusses general weighting of topic coverage and has no direct impact on a topic's notability in and of itself. The closest to an actual argument against notability is WP:SUSTAINED, but this doesn't really apply either - the event is not newly emerging a future predicted event, nor does it concern an individual known for only one event (or for whom the event is only notable due to their involvement). As for the other SUSTAINED criteria of the world "taking notice", it clearly already has - this is not a passing fad with only a few passing bits of coverage. There has been worldwide coverage for several days and anyone who doesn't believe that this will be being discussed for years to come is kidding themselves. This event in itself is undeniably notable in practically every respect, and so the only question is whether it deserves its own page - the amount of relevant, reliable content on the matter distinct from coverage of the 2022 Oscars in general would say yes. Given that there really isn't a policy argument against having this page, it does feel like a lot of people are engaging in WP:IDONTLIKEIT, although I will WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH... BlackholeWA (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think WP:Crystal does have some merit, but not in a way that those who want to delete this article think. Given that the weight of all available evidence is that this story will susitained notability, claiming that it won't is an attempt to predict future coverage. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair, Rockstone, though I disagree about it. I think this is becoming an illustration of a philosophical divide on which direction CRYSTAL should be applied in.
 * To Blackhole, CRYSTAL is being invoked about the coverage of the event, not the event itself, so "it already happened" is not the point; and, how could it be a fad for "several" days when it's only been three. Like, make the argument that it's notable, but don't inflate the amount of time since, bc that's an actual measure being considered here. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Redriect to Oscars Page. I would support to redrict this to 94th_Academy_Awards Cwater1 (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for now; the topic's enduring relevance can always be reassessed in the future. Those arguing for a redirect to the page for the 94th Academy Awards have a near-insurmountable challenge in explaining how this incident is a subtopic of the event generally when this altercation is dwarfing all other coverage of the event. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a sub-topic of the event because it occurred at the 94th Academy Awards during the ceremony. Even if it has enduring coverage and effects and a legacy from the incident alone justifying a separate article, it will always be a sub-topic of the Awards ceremony, just as how the Voyage of the James Caird will always be a sub-topic of the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition and Wreck of the RMS Titanic will always be a sub-topic of Titanic. It having the ability to stand on its own as a topic doesn't mean it isn't a sub-topic of something else, and it's kind of irrelevant. It's a sub-topic because it was part of a larger event. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  23:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Anyone who is saying that it wouldn't have sustained coverage should be feeling pretty stupid right about now. It already has more than enough coverage to justify an article, and people trying to argue that the keep !voters don't have a policy-based argument are seriously grasping at straws, because they're the ones who don't have a real argument aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. With how much significant coverage in reliable sources this has already received and will continue to receive as it keeps progressing, it would make more sense to redirect the awards ceremony to this article rather than the other way around. There is quite literally no policy-based argument whatsoever for deleting this. Mlb96 (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly not a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Like the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax, for example, it's had extensive coverage beyond just a single news report, enough to warrant it's own article and Wikipedia has tons of articles on what was at some point 'current events' and sourced to news reports. The point of WP:NOTNEWS is to not have an article on say every single time the news reports on a drug bust, sexual assault, hate crime, etc, when it's something that makes the news one day and everyone forgets about it the next day. But to invoke WP:NOTNEWS on something that's had extensive coverage beyond just a single news report (and is still getting extensively covered with more and more stuff being reported on it that's gained nationwide/worldwide attention) is itself a gruesome misinterpretation and misapplication of the spirit (rather than the letter) of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It's also had tons of social media reaction (like when Rickrolling became a thing) to the point of it becoming an internet meme. It's pretty much gone viral, based on how extensive both media coverage and social media reaction to it has been. The likelihood that this will still be notable and have historical impact once it stops being a 'current event' is enough to presume that it passes notability guidelines ("Notability is not temporary" in particular). Using this same deletion rationale, all other articles on 'current events' should also be deleted. This nomination does nothing to actually fix the problem Wikipedia has with being flooded with tons of articles that actually aren't notable (just a bunch of cruft) but someone makes it a Wikipedia article just to make it a Wikipedia article. Instead, this nomination targets a well-written, substantive encyclopedic article that for some reason, someone felt the need to nominate it for deletion because it doesn't fit their to the letter (off the cuff) interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete A WP:REDUNDANTFORK that clearly fails WP:LASTING and is a screaming example of WP:RECENTISM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:REDUNDANTFORK Huh? The article covers plenty of material that isn't covered in the article on the awards ceremony and wouldn't make sense to cover in the article on the awards ceremony.
 * clearly fails WP:LASTING On what grounds is this "clear"? WP:LASTING literally says that "recent events with unproven lasting effect are [not] automatically non-notable." And the Academy hasn't even made a decision on what it's going to do about this, so it's guaranteed to receive more coverage in the future.
 * WP:RECENTISM This is not an argument for deleting the article. It's either notable or it isn't. There is no minimum amount of time before something becomes notable. Mlb96 (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-Keep !Vote comment All the editiors arguing for deletion with WP:RECENTISM, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:LASTING are saying so contradictory to WP:CRYSTALBALL. Saying this will be forgotten and not referenced/called back on later for discussion years later are being very presumptious and incorrect about this given past examples. Kanye's Taylor Swift/Beyonce saga is still frequently mentioned today and that was far less egregious and controversial (yet still very much so) than this. Same with Madonna on Late Show with David Letterman in 1994. Think about that and let that sink in for a minute. DrewieStewie (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point this should be closed as SNOW keep anyway. Clearly not going to meet consensus to delete. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep; the incident has completely eclipsed the news cycle for the past two days, and become a major point of controversy. It has led to a public divide as to who was in the right (or at least more in the right), and there is precedent for an article such is this, much like the super bowl incident. This incident has caused much discussion and is quickly becoming the biggest Oscar moment. It should remain.Zvig47 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The arguments claiming recentism don't convince me, considering that Google News shows articles are still being published as I write this, plus there are many sources—published after and even a few before the show—that provide and analyze the background of the incident, passing WP:EVENTCRIT. Merging this article with 94th Academy Awards would cause a disproportionate amount of the latter to be about the incident. — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 01:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP, I feel like on-camera physical assault is more than just ‘tabloid gossip.’ There are enough potential facets and consequences to this situation (elements far beyond just the two participants) that a vote for deletion is too hasty to make right now. --Aabicus (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RECENTISM. Coverage of this incident belongs in the 94th Academy Awards article in the #Will Smith-Chris Rock incident section or its own section in that article; but it definitely does not need its own separate article. Even the Kanye West–Taylor Swift incident doesn't have its own page even though it's still talked about 13 years later. Some1 (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I went over the two policies you stated and it seems to match both of them. Also, there are 51 references on the article (goes to show that the event has recieved significant coverage). Seems notable enough.  InterstateFive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 01:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is more noteworthy than the Academy Awards themselves, and many (if not most) people want to read about this without reading about the awards themselves. Taylor Swift/Kanye West isn't the argument people think that it is: that event also overshadowed the 2009 MTV VMAs; perhaps it, too, deserves it's own page. The same mistake shouldn't be made twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredhicks27 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for now and delete later if nothing more comes of it. There are a bunch of guidelines you can use to support either way. Ultimately, it's a useful article right now as it's something a lot of people want to know about, which is the point of an encyclopaedia. If the event has lasting consequences outside of just the Oscars or just Will Smith's career, then it deserves its own article outside of the articles for this Oscars and Will Smith. But if nothing comes of it, then we can merge the content and redirect this one. WP:RECENT is not an argument purely against the existence of this article; the essay also contains arguments for the positives of recent information. It's about balance. Will Smith's article should not be unduely burdened by information on this event because it wouldn't provide a balanced view of his entire life and would be unfairly weighted towards recent information. However, an article on a recent event, providing there is reason to think it will continue to be seen as a notable event in future, is not a problem. We will find out moving forward. For now, there's no harm in its existence. MClay1 (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This incident has reached the extraordinary level of coverage necessary to become a cultural moment, at which point NOTNEWS no longer really applies. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The story will keep going and going and going. This is the only thing anyone is going to remember from the night. We're getting close to the point that maybe 94th Academy Awards should redirect to here! Re Taylor Swift/Kanye West comparisons, maybe its time that incident receives its own page MaskedSinger (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a big event, ongoing source wise, and all the gory details, changing of sources etc, belongs in the history here, not in the history of the two pages mentioned in the nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And don’t attempt a rename until it is at least 3 weeks old. It takes that long to get sources of proper perspective. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although this article is discussed on other wiki articles, this article has some serious depth to it. There is even an analysis section is added. This is certainly more than just a news headlining event, this was litterally physical assault on stage on live television between two well known actors. This will certainly go down in history. I'm sure the sources are much more than just "E!" news articles... DreamlessGlare (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The OP says that "it is too early to judge whether this event will have lasting notability", however, aside from the extraordinary amount of RS on this incident (i.e it meets WP:GNG), many of the highest quality WP:RS/P have alreay ranked the indicent as the most significant in Oscars history. Examples: Rolling Stone, NPR, The Guardian etc. I would probably list over 10 WP:RS/P sources that rank this incident as the most notable in Oscars history. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I notice that the incident is appearing as a large (and growing) paragraph in several Wikipedia articles (e.g. 94th Academy Awards, Will Smith, Chris Rock), and therefore having one main article with the detail is helpful for readers, and avoids repetition and error 78.19.232.48 (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominator says its too early to call but I think this has grown bigger than anyone imagined over the last days and its now. I see some serious depth to it --Icem4k (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This should be keeped because many people are talking about this and many important things have a Wikipedia article, this is important because for one, actors slapping actors is unprecedented and two, this is remembered as television history’s most important time. nash neefus (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral In my opinion, it passes the 'newsbreak' prohibition, supported by multiple reliable sources but slightly fails becuase of being 'recent' based on the date of the sources. Best if we wait for a month or so for other sources and I will finalize my answer as a keep, otherwise... Xinghua  (she/her) •  Talk  11:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.