Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 00:52, 23 September 2024

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 no consensus‎. This may be a day short, but there is no way that a consensus to delete will be reached, esp. given how the votes have gone over the last couple of days. There's no agreement at all on whether this is a case of 1E, and at any rate it seems like many if not most of the editors argue that this single event is notable enough to warrant inclusion. To stay on the safe side I'll call this "No consensus", but it really looks like a clear "keep". Drmies (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Ryan Wesley Routh

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Ryan Wesley Routh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

WP:BLP1E. Only notable for the shooting, and unlike Thomas Matthew Crooks, who actually injured Trump during the attempt, Routh did not even shoot close to Trump (sources have said he was 300-500 yards away). Even though the FBI has said this is an assassination attempt, very little is known about the suspect at this time. MarioProtIV (/_contribs) 03:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as per WP:RAPID. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Wait: He doesn't have to have injured Trump to be notable; that's not a requirement. Honestly, some of the good arguments used to support keeping the article of Thomas Matthew Crooks could apply to Ryan Wesley Routh. I'm just less convinced of his notability so I won't !vote to keep this time. I think we should wait for more details to appear before we try to determine whether or not he's notable; it's still too early. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, Waiting is the best option for the next 24 hours. Leaning towards Draftify/Redirect if nothing else is dug up but his previous activism may be promising. Page metadata needs to be changed, it already claims this guy is an assassin (the point is somewhat moot but I think it’s premature). 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 05:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think waiting feels a little CRYSTALLBALLish. Presumed future notability really oughtn't matter when deciding whether an article is notable enough right now, which is all we're here to do. So there's probably an argument for the article being WP:TOOSOON. Still, I agree with you that many of the arguments used in favour of keeping Thomas Matthew Crooks could apply here (while also sharing your doubts about notability), so I'll hold off from a !vote for now. GhostOfNoMeme 12:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't participate in many of these debates. I think the original author should have waited longer before making the page in the first place. It's been made though and what's done is done - for the moment. Let's not further exacerbate the rush to make it by rushing to delete it. No one will suffer one way or another if we wait a bit before deleting it.

  Mentor397 (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Just when does an attempted Presidential assassin become notable? When he succeeds in getting a shot off?Amyzex (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  So here's the tl;dr of things...he's not charged with attempted murder, because he never fired a shot, he was stopped before he could.

  So its technically not an attempted assassination by legal standards, which is why he's only facing gun charges.

  (yes the law IS that complicated and convoluted).

  there's a reason why the article people are suggesting to merge this with is just called a "shooting" as opposed to an assassination attempt. GokuSS400 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  But this clearly was an attempted murder. There are three elements of an attempt:

  https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/inchoate-crimes/attempt/

  (1) intent to commit a crime

  Routh clearly intended to shoot Trump.

  (2) conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward completing the crime

  Routh constructed a blind and lay in wait for something like 12 hours

  (3) a failure to complete the crime

  Routh failed.

  So we have someone who attempted to murder a former and perhaps future President. Sounds pretty significant to me. 2601:8C0:A84:7C60:2929:656C:A4C6:41C0 (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Politics, Florida, Hawaii, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep for now as it was reported that Routh had previous charges involving weapons of mass destruction, so this is not WP:BLP1E. 2601:603:300:AFF0:C55A:28C9:721:C5ED (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete / merge back into the main article. As Trump was not injured and no shots were fired at him, I suspect Routh's notability to fade, like many of the other people who are listed at Security incidents involving Donald Trump. This is less of an assassination attempt as it is a security incident or foiled plan. (Luckily) the Secret Service did its job. Natg 19 (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't create articles and then wait around to see if they become notable. That's not how this works. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree but I'm not sure if it's a good thing to delete the article now that it's been created. Ideally it wouldn't have been created until we were sure that the subject is notable. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Trump International Golf Club shooting and draftify -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep laughable to even consider deletion - how much clear political bias does wiki need to unendingly display?! Arguments: obviously WP:RAPID since we have no idea how deep down the rabbit hole this one goes and obviously not WP:BLP1E since he was previously arrested with a fully automatic machine gun = weapon of mass destruction!2600:8800:FF0E:300:7C5A:797:4AF2:99DF (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

An automatic firearm is not a weapon of mass destruction, despite how the media spins it. It was not what Bush was searching for in Iraq, since there are literal tonnes of AKs there. Thus the WMD issue is a non-starter, so not relevant to notablity -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

He was charged with "carrying a concealed weapon and possession of a weapon of mass destruction" . David O. Johnson (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

He had a machine gun, which he did not actually use, not a nuclear bomb or similar which is what most people think of as a WMD.--A bit iffy (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

He was convicted of that same charge.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/5-things-apparent-assassination-attempt-trump-golf-courses-113712979 David O. Johnson (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Owning an AK-47 does not in any way lend itself to establishing notability. This is Florida. If I had a nickel for everyone down here who owns a military style assault rifle, I could stop buying lottery tickets. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per BLP1E. Routh simply won't be significant enough in the future to justify it's own article. It should be merged into a section in Trump International Golf Club shooting. Feeglgeef (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  There are articles for other individuals of a similar level of notability for him who attempted to assassinate presidents without injuring same, including Cipriano Ferrandini, Richard Lawrence (failed assassin) and Raymond Lee Harvey.XavierGreen (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  BLP1E gives John Hinckley Jr as an example of someone who gets an article anyway. Routh is analogous to Hinckley. 203.211.104.189 (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. What’s the point in deleting something that has been so thoroughly researched and written? This seems like a cover-up by Harris stans Freespeech2024 (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comparing Ryan Routh to John Hinckley Jr. in terms of notability is an argument that doesn't stand up. Hinckley wounded a sitting president and several others including the Press Secretary, who later died of his injuries. Routh allegedly took aim at a former president and was scared off by the USSS before he could do anything. TRCRF22 (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• merge per above. Bedivere (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per BLP1E. No indication Routh is of lasting significance. Incorporate content in other articles where relevant.--A bit iffy (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Trump International Golf Club shooting per BLP1E and WP:DELAY. One tends to get tired of people wielding WP:RAPID as a sort of get out of jail free card for the abuse of DELAY and the pervasive rush to create articles that do not meet our guidelines and are unlikely to in the future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep We don't get very many presidential assassins here on wikipedia and presidential assassins are inherently notable and this event has lots of sources already. The FBI has announced this was an attempted assassination and that makes the subject of this article notable. He has been arrested and charged and will be prosecuted. At present, the FBI has not obtained an indictment which should come very soon, after which this Afd can be updated. Too soon to delete this article. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Could you point me to the guideline that says failed presidential assassins are inherently notable? I've been around a while but must have missed that one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I can point you to numerous articles on presidential assassins which each have their own article. If you try to assassinate a president or former president of the United States, you will most certainly make it into the history books. I don't think I need to state the obvious. The "Guideline" is what gets reduced to practice on WP, and all these former assassins have an article which is reducing it to practice. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  The 2016 assassination attempt on Trump in Las Vegas does not get an article for its perpetrator. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Trump International Golf Club shooting per WP:BLP1E. No need for a biography and there is no reason it can't be covered sufficiently there. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. He already had a fair bit of media coverage before his attempted assassination of Trump, due to his activities in Ukraine. And of course now with his attempted shooting and subsequent arrest and trial, there will be a whole lot more coverage. There doesn't really seem to be any reason to doubt his notability at this point -2003:CA:8718:B90B:3530:38D0:867B:345C (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Trump International Golf Club shooting per WP:BLP1E and multiple editors above. He wouldn’t be notable without the golf club incident. Bondegezou (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The man didn't even get close, and he's about to go to prison for a very long time where I doubt he's going to have any more notable events that would qualify him for a wiki page. I say this as someone who voted keep on Thomas Matthew Crooks, this guy is not gonna remain notable enough to get his own page a week from now. --Aabicus (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly passing WP:GNG right now. Would be presidential assassin. Which is rare. The sourcing is third party and good at the moment. Keep it.BabbaQ (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge or keep; leaning on merge Certainly not a full delete, in case more info comes out and he warrants a page again, I'd like for the edit history to be easily seen for a potential reconstruction. But at the moment, there's not enough info about him to warrant him a page. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Change to keep per WP:RAPID and WO:HEY. Subject has had more reporting since yesterday. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete but only for now. Routh may become more significant as time passes but as of right now we have little to no information about him aside from his past endeavors. I say wait until the FBI interrogates him and we get a more fleshed out story as he is still alive.TJD2 (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep The subject is notable at the moment as more details about him is being unraveled. Suspect was caught alive by FBI according to sources and not dead. The Afd nomination is too quick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 08:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep for now. This discussion should have started on the talk page per WP:ATD. Anyway... my keep opinion is based on WP:RAPID, another option is to have a redirect to the article where his name is mentioned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: According to nomination. --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 10:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify/Temporarily Delete while he definitely has the potential for notability, it is important to remember that WP:BLPCRIME still applies even if he's been convicted of a previous offense. It is rather easy to have false/uncertain information circulate especially in the very early stages of a highly publicized event. The FBI/Secret Service has had less than a day to investigate this, and perceived notions around this case can change rapidly. And even then, they are not a jury which can give a conviction.

For this reason I believe it is best to temporarily delete (or to draftify incase of reinstation) as this accusation is the only reason he is notable enough to be considered for his own article, and even then the notability is being debated above.

WP:BLPCRIME shouldn't be ignored just because this is a high profile case, and I am frankly a bit concerned that not a single person has even mentioned this guideline in the entire discussion . Floine (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep for now, for the simple reason that there are independent global and third-party sources about him that tell and delve into his life and story. It is not the first time that is under the media spotlight for is controversial supporting on Ukrainian-Russia war. For now he has considerable notability as a criminal. 109.114.14.46 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep since this individual has had a bit of a past, and one does not have to fire a bullet at a person in order to attempt an assassination on them. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep for now. I see it doing no harm to keep it. SlaterRaptor1976 (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge: I suggest we keep the content but merge it with Trump International Golf Club shooting SlaterRaptor1976 (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep per others. - Sebbog13 (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete -- WP:BLP1E on an event that itself is facing an argument on whether it deserves a stand-alone article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep if Thomas Crooks has one I don't see a problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloxzge 025 (talk • contribs) .

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument to use on its own. GhostOfNoMeme 12:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete -- WP:BLP1E on an event that itself is facing an argument on whether it deserves a stand-alone article. I second deletion. Let us stop making an article for every idiot who trespasses with intentions to commit a felony. We are not a Tabloid! Delete immediately or lose the credibility as an Encyclopaedia. Also, giving visibility to such people reinforces their desire to kill.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.87.68.175 (talk • contribs)

Also, giving visibility to such people reinforces their desire to kill. Maybe so, but Misplaced Pages is not censored. What's important is the verifiability and notability of an article's subject. GhostOfNoMeme 12:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep passes GNG per his criminal history and past interviews with news media in combination with his most recent arrest. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to the event page per BLP. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect: WP:BLP1E. Nothing really happened here. The event itself might not even warrant its own article. C F A 💬 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect Not nearly as notable as Crooks, and he is also a living person so BLP1E is involved here. We can recreate the article later if we need to. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep Now meets WP:GNG. SirMemeGod  14:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep: per WP:RAPID also we have Squeaky Fromme, who also failed at an assassination where no one was hurt. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@LuxembourgLover: We also don't have Michael Steven Sandford who failed at an assassination of Trump where nobody was hurt. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel like a person grabbing a cops gun is not the same as police opening fire a a guy aiming at trump. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In that case, see Salvador Ramos, a man who killed 21 people in ~90 minutes, also someone who doesn't have an article because the section on them is perfectly fine. The only notability by Routh so far is his involvement in an incident not even primarily regarding him (WP:CRIME). While he does meet Perp criteria 1, they still don't even know if this is the right guy. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 14:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Striking out my comment, I have now realized that the two are barely comparable. SirMemeGod  21:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete for now per above fails WP:N until the shooter is confirmed articles should not be created. SKAG123 (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete/merge No need for a separate page here. The previous criminal history is not relevant to notability. Reywas92 14:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I was able to find more articles that date back before his attempted assassination, including his marriage and his life with his wife. Plus, it is the second attempted assassination of Donald Trump during the 2024 Election. Yoshiman6464 14:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - Can't see any reason to delete this. I also expect a lot more coverage as he goes to trial and more details are revealed.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Previous attempted assassin of Trump's page was also kept. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as per others

Waleed (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep; does not satisfy the deletion requirements re: WP:BLP1E. To wit, requirement 3 (The event was not significant and/or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well-documented) is not met:

• The event is significant; it is an assassination attempt of a former President of the United States. The example that BLP1E gives for notability is literally the Reagan assassination attempt.
• The role of Ryan Wesley Routh is substantial; he is the primary suspect.
• While the role of Ryan Wesley Routh is not well documented, this is covered by WP:RAPID as multiple people have noted, as the situation has not yet had enough time to develop and be written about.

𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The event was not "significant". The example given is the Reagan assassination attempt, where Reagan was severely wounded and nearly died. All that happened yesterday was that someone was found with a gun in a bush at Trump's golf course. No injuries at all – Routh didn't even let off any shots. All three criteria of BLP1E are met here (1: Covered in the context of a single event; 2: Obviously a low-profile individual; 3: the event was not "significant" enough to warrant a separate biography). C F A 💬 20:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, but regarding Routh didn't even let off any shots I don't think it's known either way, yet. CBC and NPR are both reporting that it's "unclear" whether he let off any shots before the USSS agent(s?) opened fire. The New York Times similarly says it's unclear whether he took any shots "before fleeing" (presumably meaning the time between being engaged by the agents and his fleeing).

Personally, I don't think this will amount to anything like the Crooks event. I don't see it being significant now or in the future. GhostOfNoMeme 20:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, fair enough, I guess. I was reading this Politico article which states: The Sunday incident was “not like what happened in Butler,” said ... “He did not get off any rounds, and that was because the Secret Service agent acted quickly,”. C F A 💬 23:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It's apparent by now that the shooter did not manage to fire the weapon, but then again, neither did Squeaky Fromme. Given her association with Manson and her well-documented story she has her own article. Routh apparently has a well-documented criminal history and has been the subject of numerous interviews and articles; that on their own wouldn't be notable enough for a BLP -- but his involvement with what is an apparent assassination plot has made him notable. Similar to Fromme, her notability would be diminished had she not plotted to kill a president. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: significant media coverage, very similar to Thomas Matthew Crooks. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Gregory Lee Leingang also tried to kill President Trump in 2017, but he did not get his own Misplaced Pages page. Neither men made a shot or any contact with him. Catboy69 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: significant media coverage. Don't see an issue since Thomas Crooks has one. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep - It is true that Thomas Matthew Crooks underwent the same treatment in its early stages, with attempted redirects along the way. I'm against using that as keep justification though, considering that he has been confirmed as the attempted assassin of his case, whereas Routh is unconfirmed-- not to mention that there were no shots fired nor injuries sustained. Reasoning for weak keep is that there is significant media coverage, paired with the identification of being a suspect. RadiantTea (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:RAPID.Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per GNG ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Participant in a major news story. Another example of deletionism gone wild. Moncrief (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per earlier precedent such as Crooks. We are seeing the beginnings where political violence is being normalized once again in the US since the 1960s (Ronald Reagan's assassin wasn't really politically-motivated ..more of a celebrity fetish/crush thing ). Such novel developments should be represented via individuals such as these. I also disagree with editors saying "He barely did anything" , this also doesn't fit precedents in other cases (1) . Routh is notable enough , whenever he pulled the trigger or not. The fact he was the second person who attempted to assassinate Trump and has a clear political history compared to the late aloof and equivocal Crooks (Who literally was a kid), makes him in some way more interesting for readers.

TheCuratingEditor (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:LASTING. Not notable for just this one incident at this time, and appears unlikely to be notable in the future (with the event itself currently bordering on being notable enough to sustain an article). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:RAPID. Neighborhood Review (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Trump International Golf Club shooting _pbp 19:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep he satisfies the notability requirements, the shooting and his Russo-Ukrainian War related activities combined together satisfy the guidelines.XavierGreen (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Given all the speculation, thorough coverage of Routh would unbalance the main article, but a brief summary is likely to produce an unbalanced account of Routh's politics and motivations. Nuance matters in a politically charged issue like this one, and the best way to maintain nuance is to maintain an article, at least for now. Guettarda (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep At this point in time it quite literally is too soon to dismiss him as not notable or not worthy of coverage. It has been ONE day since the investigation began. To close the book on him and say he's not worthy of note is a rush to judgement on many fronts. While the investigation runs its course and the Court moves as well, it can be re-evaluated as more information comes to light. However for the moment, rushing to delete or saying both the would-be assailant and the incident are not notable is an extreme rush to judgement as there are obviously facts that we don't know yet. In cases like this it's best to wait a few days and as much as a week before making any judgement calls. GokuSS400 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• KEEP This person tried to assassinate a former President who is a current party's nominee for president. This was almost immediately known; and every fact disclosed since the attempted assassination has confirmed that it was an attempted assassination. The FBI has now stated that he was "lying in wait" for Trump for nearly 12 hours. Let the people see the facts as they are publicly known... otherwise, the attempt to delete this article is just another censorship attempt. What else do you need... a conviction? Dw1215 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect As clear a case of WP:BLP1E as there is. The incident is notable, but that's about it. If a person in Uruguay, Botswana, Laos, or Fiji appeared in the vicinity of a leading politician, we wouldn't even consider having a separate article for them. The US are no different. Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Those citing WP:BLP1E should note that it is not monolithic: it presents John Hinckley Jr. as an exception in the context of the 1981 assassination attempt. That's an essentially identical situation to Routh's. ~ HAL333 21:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. Routh's situation is more akin to someone like Gregory Lee Leingang, who also had an "attempt" to assassinate Trump but did not get close enough to injure him. Leingang is briefly mentioned on Security incidents involving Donald Trump, and so Routh could be mentioned there, or at the main article about this incident. Natg 19 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Another similar situation is Michael Steven Sandford (2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident), who also does not have a separate article. Natg 19 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Meaningless examples, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I could just as easily bring up Sara Jane Moore from the Attempted assassination of Gerald Ford in San Francisco or Squeaky Fromme from the Attempted assassination of Gerald Ford in Sacramento: neither of whom injured a president. Unlike you, I was citing Misplaced Pages policy, specifically condition 3 of WP:BLP1E. Routh's role was 1) substantial and 2) well-documented in RS. ~ HAL333 23:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@HAL333 You understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to your example of John Hinckley Jr., right? Though I agree with Natg that Hinckley isn't in the same category as Routh appears to be. As far as conditions are concerned, Routh's role may have been "substantial" in the context of the "apparent" attempted assassination, but there's an or there that you seem to be missing, and that's the event is not significant, and this one clearly is borderline right now given nothing happened (nobody was hurt or injured, and one Secret Service agent fired his weapon). Being well-documented in RS is not sufficient enough to justify a separate article. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice straw man. Hinckley's not my example. It's WP:BLP1E's. And the "or" is irrelevant if Routh meets both points for condition 3, as he does. An assassination arrempt on the former POTUS is not "significant"? Come on. Notability is not dependent on fatality. ~ HAL333 23:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if I would cite BLP1E for this. I believe this fits more under WP:NOPAGE. However, if we are to argue BLP1E, I don't believe this is incident is "significant" per point 3. Routh was not close enough to Trump to fire off a shot, nor was anyone injured in this incident. This incident is given more press coverage in light of the assassination attempt in July, but if this incident had happened in January or February, no one would think much of it. Natg 19 (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Well it didn't happen in January of February... ~ HAL333 23:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

... but the event was not significant (criteria 3 of BLP1E). Routh apparently never even let off a shot. He was found in a bush with a gun and was promptly arrested. Hinckley, on the other hand, actually shot (and nearly killed) Reagan. C F A 💬 23:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The media certainly thinks Routh's actions were significant, if the extensive coverage is anything to go by. Misplaced Pages should follow the judgement of reliable sources, not insert its own judgement. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, the word criteria is plural. The singular is criterion. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Though I suppose I should have treated the word media as plural myself. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - There are many many many reliable covering Routh and diving into his life. He certainly passes WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep — at least for now, per WP:RAPID.--Surv1v4l1st 21:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Trump International Golf Club shooting. It is a bad idea to give deluded shooters their own page. If you do, you may as well declare open season on every single elected official. (This is my first edit in years. Regrets if it looks crude. I really need to learn Misplaced Pages syntax.) --Mr-Encyclopedia-Man (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect and Draftify per Natg 19 and others. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 22:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:RAPID. Bardadrac (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:RAPID. Spilia4 (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep This man is now part of history. A comparable situation is Squeaky Fromme who hoped to kill President Gerald Ford but did not manage to fire her gun. Cullen328 (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Per above. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep for now. A textbook example of why we have WP:RAPID. Sock (tock talk) 00:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Keep Wiki is truthful Tobenschain (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:RAPID, and there are now many notable sources discussing him specifically, and arguably his ukraine interviews made him notable enough even before this event. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 01:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Trump International Golf Club shooting. Very clearly a violation of BLP1E, which is exemplified by basically all of the sources in the article being from yesterday and today. Claims he was notable prior, such as by Scaledish just above me, are not represented in the slightest. Further claims of individual notability just because of this incident are belied by the other examples in Security incidents involving Donald Trump, where there have been several assassination attempts on Trump over the past decade, with only the one prior to this being notable enough to have a separate article on the perpetrator. Please note that many of the accounts voting Keep above are both new and WP:SPAs who aren't even making policy reasons in their votes, so should be wholesale disregarded by the closer. Failure of the closer to do so will prompt me (and I'm sure many others) to immediately take this to Deletion Review, as what matters in AfDs is policy arguments, not numbers. Silverseren 02:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, the closer should disregard any WP:RAPID arguments, as by the very nature of the policy page it is on, RAPID is about events, not people. So if this was an AfD for the Trump International Golf Club shooting, then it would be a policy argument, but this is not an event article, this is a BLP article. Furthermore, literally right above RAPID on the same policy page is WP:DELAY, which applies just as much, if not more so. Silverseren 02:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note to closer I am neither new nor an SPA. I have been editing for over 15 years and have made over 100,000 edits. As for WP:RAPID, that guideline language says It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer. 36 hours after the Secret Service fired the shots, the significance of the event and the accused is crystal clear to those who read the voluminous coverage in many reliable sources that have published independent coverage of this man today. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that there's a ton of SPAs and newly made accounts here making non-policy arguments? As for RAPID, you even note yourself that the event is significant, but we're not discussing the event here. We're discussing if the accused has independent notability from the event, which RAPID doesn't support and also has not been shown. Large amounts of coverage of the event doesn't inherently then mean the person involved deserves a separate article. Silverseren 03:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Silver seren, we do not delete a new article because new editors support keeping the article, especially when experienced editors like me also support keeping the article. Major top tier news sources worldwide are not only reporting on the event, but are also publishing countless separate independent articles devoted to investigating the background of this person who has multiple felony convictions including for barricading himself with a machine gun about 20 years ago, and who was written up in the New York Times just last year for his incompetent efforts to recruit former Afghan soldiers to go fight against Russia in Ukraine. As well as being a Misplaced Pages editor and administrator, I am also a Misplaced Pages reader and user. In those last two roles, I resent the efforts of some Misplaced Pages editors to deny me the right to learn as much about this person as possible in a curated article in the world's greatest encyclopedia, instead forcing me and other readers to do online searches and evaluate source reliability on our own, and sort out the grains of wheat from the massive internet chaff. That is the very purpose of Misplaced Pages, and if folks want to delete articles about people like Squeaky Fromme and this individual, I will always oppose that vigorously. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNG. Too many reliable sources. — Nameless 02:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I'll nominate this to be kept. I've inspected the article and it has plenty of information for an own article, there are also plenty of reliable sources. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 07:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete far too many editors playing investigator and connecting his name with old newspaper articles. Everything that actually should be included is mentioned on the article about the shooting. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle, the connections to "old newspaper articles" is being made by the highest quality reliable sources now, not by Misplaced Pages editors doing their own original research. Are you reading the actual coverage? Cullen328 (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm reading what was in the article. Which at the time was original research that goes against NOTPRIMARY and BLP in some cases such as marriage records. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect/Merge. As it stands, the page feels like a more verbose version of the perpetrator section on the golf club page. I don't feel like that's needed context per WP:PAGEDECIDE. If people look up his name to get the attempt, we could easily redirect it to that section and lose minimal context, if any. HeptatonicScale (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify per WP:TOOSOON - the information contained in the article is simply too speculative - Wait and get information as it comes as to not violate WP:BLP with unfounded information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unexpectedinquisition (talk • contribs) 11:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep There's already a large and growing body of published articles about the guy. He meets notability requirements. 203.211.104.189 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: For everyone citing WP:BLP1E, that policy gives John Hinckley Jr as an example of someone who gets an article anyway. Routh is analogous to Hinckley. 203.211.104.189 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but either Draftify or Keep as sadly, if Thomas Matthew Crooks, solely notable for another attempted assassination, could remain due to the general notability guideline, then we should probably stop beating a dead horse and acknowledge that in technicality, Routh is notable enough for an article. OhHaiMark (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

We are not bound by "technically we have to" if it seems clear that an article is simply not valid for inclusion, especially if your thoughts behind "technically" is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kingsif (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:BLP1ENOT. Role in the particular recent event significant. Role well-documented. Event notable. Not a low-profile individual. Reliable sources do not even cover him only in the context of a single event. Possible to write a biography as evidenced by the content of the page. Content encyclopedic and educational. Facts due. Background and context encyclopedically meaningful. Too much information alien to the event and far removed from it to merge into the event article.—Alalch E. 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting essay, and this individual clearly meets the criteria discussed in it. Pretty obvious why some editors want this BLP binned. Yet, we have Thomas Matthew Crooks, who outside of an initial flurry of coverage, it's highly unlikely that we'll get additional details around what motivated him or his background. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep H's being specifically named worldwide, and the list keeps growing, not low-profile by any means.Thief-River-Faller (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep due to significant and likely lasting media coverage. Different than Thomas Matthew Crooks but has received similar levels of coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: likely to have a continued coverage. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect Some people may be interested in the other activities of this person, but that is for the tabloids: the pertinent information for inclusion on Misplaced Pages is entirely about his involvement in an event. That event has an article that is well-developed enough it warrants a decent "suspect" section. Keep the name redirect for searchability. I would probably say the same about Thomas Matthew Crooks, FWIW, but it can also be said that Crooks got a shot on and then was killed, so significance as an individual is a bit bigger. Kingsif (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  That doesn't really account for Misplaced Pages having an article for Squeaky Fromme, but I don't want to wander too far into other stuff, etc. We cover aspects of a subjects life that reliable sources deem notable enough to cover in depth, per WP:WEIGHT. If RS cover other aspects of Routh's history in depth, Misplaced Pages has a responsibility to cover that as well (with respect to policy). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  You keep bringing up Fromme having an article and, as you note: WP:OTHERSTUFF. We're talking about this article, not if a different one should exist or if justification for one transfers to another.

  It doesn't matter how many RSs decide to flavour the meal, if it's not information that establishes notability, then it shouldn't be considered here. While we (rightly) include that 'flavour' in BLPs, the notability has to be established first. When we take the flavour out, all we're left with is information that belongs at the event article. As I said, that article is decent enough you can have a longer "suspect" section including some background if you want. Kingsif (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge As per above. FloridaMan21 15:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• KeeporMerge: (I don't really care which one) - as long as the information is correct. This will be politicly important for the presidential election in the US, and that will be important for the world. As sad as that is. 90.186.87.94 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect: to Trump International Golf Club shooting. This article adequately covers the event, and there's a section about the suspect that can be expanded. We must keep in mind WP:BLPCRIME, which states that a living person accused of crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. There's no need for a separate article about Routh. DesiMoore (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep - seems to meet notability and contains additional relevant details that would be too much to add to the main article. ~Darth Stabro 18:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Selective Merge & Redirect: to Trump International Golf Club shooting. Two policies point against a stand alone page - WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Both policies point to the core policies of material about living persons - articles "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." --Enos733 (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep for now. An enough lot of RS coverage is coming out about Routh very recently and intially appears notable based on this, as with Crookes. Do not in principle oppose an AfD in a month or two's time once the dust has settled, but considering the further coverage during his trial and likely sentencing it seem unlikely to become unnotable.  Spy-cicle💥  21:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep given significant media coverage and meets WP:GNG. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep - I think That having an article on this man will help our historical understanding of this election, two assassination attempts in one election cycle is unprecedented. He's also an oddball, the information online about him and his motives tell an interesting story that is unique. He probably has the largest digital footprint of any attempted or successful US presidential assassin. It does help that it's a very funny digital footprint. Spicygarbage (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep WP:BLP1ENOT. Good amount of media coverage. 10 year test - remember that guy who tried to kill Trump while he was golfing? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Notable for a single WP:RECENT event and can be adequately covered in Trump International Golf Club shooting. We don't need to re-post every single detail of his life that happens to be in a news report this week. --ZimZalaBim 02:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I'm also not convinced Thomas Matthew Crooks should be a stand-alone article, versus just a decent-sized section in Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. --ZimZalaBim 03:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Meh. ZimZalaBim has some great points right above me. However, general notability guidelines are extremely selectively enforced. Would this be kept if it were, say, a person attempting to assassinate a foreign leader? I feel like this might belong better in the event article, just like Crooks, buuuuuuuut it's a major event, so I think it could be notable. LilianaUwU 02:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Not notable in his own right, and this should be dealt with within the broader article. - SchroCat (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Blatantly obvious keep, this guy is accused of attempting to assassinate a former US president while that president is running for re-election as a candidate for one of the two major American parties. If this doesn't qualify as 'notable' in the eyes of dozens of Misplaced Pages editors, then what does count? Should we (the people who believe that some insect species found on a single unpopulated island in the Philippines are notable in their own small way) just give it up already? Should we just get it over with and delete Misplaced Pages altogether? Maybe, if we could have a small concession, we could delete everything except the Earth page, and on that write the word 'harmless' and nothing else? Perhaps, if I could be greedy, I could convince you to allow us to write 'mostly harmless', though it does take up more space? Joe (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep Thomas Matthew Crooks has his own page, so should Ryan. Scuba 12:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete / merge (Redacted) 124.169.141.129 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as the WP:NOTBLP1E essay permits such articles on a low-profile individual notable for only a single event in which he had a substantial and well-documented role. He is an alleged attempted assassin of a former U.S. president who is currently running for a non-consecutive term in an election that has been described as an election that will determine the fate of democracy and therefore this individual will be a defining moment not just in the context of this assassination attempt but in this election. cookie monster 755 18:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, as this is very infamous. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep Routh has a lot of good sources on him, he also has other sources of his past crimes which adds more notability Joey (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:RAPID. We can always re-evaluate in 30 days. Rob (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep WP:BLP1ENOT. Notable for more than just the shooting, having been profiled in NYT, Newsweek etc. for his activities in Ukraine. AmygdalicGloss (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Trump International Golf Club shooting simply for reasons that have already been described, i think his Infobox could be very good there. StrongALPHa (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete, at least for now, per WP:SUSPECT. For individuals who are not public figures editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. Maintaining an article on Routh at this stage strongly implies that he is guilty of trying to kill Trump when such fact has not been established. TRCRF22 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The key phrase in that policy is seriously consider. It's not a hard-and-fast dictum against documenting charges that are being pursued in a court of law, particularly if mentioning the charges is justified by the notability of the case. The editors have been careful to use words like allegedly and suspect, so the presumption of innocence is being respected. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, given the extensive coverage of the charges against Routh, I would contend that he is a public figure now. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2488:6F5B:A83B:264D (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. See Misplaced Pages:Who is a low-profile individual. TRCRF22 (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. "High-profile: Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program" - Routh gave interviews connected to his role as a recruiter for Ukrainian armed forces. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2488:6F5B:A83B:264D (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

So... clearly not a low-profile individual. I would cite that essay precisely to argue that he is not a low-profile individual. —Alalch E. 22:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Well, he did tried to kill a former US president. That would be considered notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages. rektz (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment There was news coverage of Routh even before the murder attempt. Perhaps he is independently notable as a skateboard advocate/rapist-chasing vigilante/war recruiter/local petty criminal. Bremps... 15:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Petty crime or being a "local hero" does not make one notable. The "recruiter for Ukraine" may be indepedently notable, but that did not get much coverage until now, when journalists started looking deeper into his background. Routh was not a "known" figure for his recruitment efforts, and Ukrainian organizations disavow knowing him. Natg 19 (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Our readers have a reasonable expectation of certain types of content. A biography of an attempted assassin — agglomerating information from a wide range of public sources — is exactly one such case. Miles over the GNG.... Carrite (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - BLP1E is for the winner of a lottery or a gameshow, not a progatonist in a world-historical event. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

KEEP alleged attempted assassination of former US president and candidate merits wikipedia article. Shoehorning into golf assassination attempt cries out for removing history of the gentleman. Brucer42 (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment. The discussion is in the news right now. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Well isn't that something. TheBritinator (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Imagine considering The Daily Wire "news". LilianaUwU 02:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

A funny sort of news piece. The writer doesn't seem to have noticed that most editors are arguing to keep the article. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2488:6F5B:A83B:264D (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a bit of a journalistic oversight not to mention that there is a clear consensus to keep the page. Any crackpot can nominate the Earth page for deletion, it would only reflect badly on Misplaced Pages if we actually did it. Joe (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality and good faith assumptions are nice and all, but "journalistic oversight" is stretching it. It's a sensationalist hitpiece at its core. Hell, the link to this discussion is a revision comparison to mobile Misplaced Pages rather than just a straight link to this page. There's little research involved here. I hope people who somehow see this article from the news post are aware of WP:POLL. RadiantTea (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Article appears to be quite extensive and well sourced. Notability seems assured. TheBritinator (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I fail to see how notability of the person and his actions are in question. The more info that comes out, the more apparent it becomes it is notable ++Arx Fortis (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Routh is now a notable public figure, with too much info on his background to fit onto the main article. User:Ageofultron (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Numerous would-be assassins, such as Squeaky Fromme and Raymond Lee Harvey, have their own articles despite never firing a shot. I don't see why Routh is any less notable. User:MrsKoma (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:RAPID and ever-increasing significant RS coverage. We can re-evaluate a few months from now to determine whether or not this a case of WP:BLP1E. Sal2100 (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Too early for a sensible decision. 90.142.52.139 (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: no matter the outcome, I feel like this discussion is invalid, since the article is under the Russo-Ukraniar war contentious topic, which is under an extended-confirmed restriction. LilianaUwU 00:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  @LilianaUwU Not really. It's more so categorized as a presidential assassination attempt. No one knows why he did it. Was it Ukraine? Probably not, I think he was just severely mentally unstable. Alexysun (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  The article is only very tangentially related to that topic. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  Would the article fall under that topic, though? I know we're told it applies "broadly", but just how broadly exactly? Routh's notability doesn't stem primarily from his involvement in the Russia–Ukraine conflict; it seems the connection is pretty tangential. I don't know what sort of precedent there is for how we categorise articles under contentious topics, though. GhostOfNoMan 02:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Even if we did run a second deletion discussion with just extended confirmed users, the consensus would only be more lopsided in the direction of keep, given that when this page was initially nominated for deletion there weren't half as many RS on this guy as there are now. Joe (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or merge He didn't even fire a shot. If things develop and we know more, we can write an article about him. EpicAdventurer (talk) 00:45, 23 September 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.