Talk:Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should not be deleted[edit]

This immolation relates to the first criminal trial of a former president. I'd say that makes it worthy of being recorded and looked into. "Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell" as an article is still standing and I think that sets good precedent. 38.22.136.215 (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have many articles on Trump's various trials, but notability is not inherited. Why, according to sources, is this unfortunate event encyclopedically significant? Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more precise to say "this self-immolation is linked/related to the first criminal trial of a former president or incumbent president of the USA."
It really doesn't "relate" to the trial except insofar as the individual who set himself alight apparently wanted to make it so. Whether it is substantively related is a moot point. Presidential precedential, tomato tomato. But it is certainly related in both temporal and spatial measures (by virtue of happening at the same place and time as Trump's criminal trial).
Nevertheless, the event is clearly and undeniably notable. Wikipedia editors place a great deal of importance on the BBC as a "source". And at this very moment, this story is the BBC News Online service's leading article. It's also a leading news story on all other major international news channels at this moment in time (0100 GMT 20 April 2024). This event (or any event) can be notable without being significant, interesting, newsworthy, rational or consequential. For example, Wikipedia has articles on Flat Earth theories, despite these being insignificant, uninteresting, un-newsworthy, irrational and inconsequential. Let's give this barbeque fanatic the attention he craves. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This immolation has NOTHING to do with the Trump trial.
What is of interest is WHY he carried out their form of "extreme protest". 104.158.48.139 (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This incident has been reported, at length, on TV news channels and elsewhere. The page already references these, and there will obviously be more. Regardless of Mr. Azzarello's notability before this incident, the incident seems to easily meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. tobych (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many events are covered in newspapers and similar, but Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Why, according to sources, is this unfortunate event encyclopedically significant? It isn't enough to have sources saying an event happened, we need to be able to provide context to readers for why it has lasting significance. Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely notable enough. It was a self-immolation in protest of a war that was widely covered by news sources NomzEditingWikis (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question, though. As I said above, WP:NOTINHERITED applies. This article isn't about the war, nor Trump's trial, nor about cryptocurrency ponzi schemes, not about "The Simpsons" - which are also things he was ostensibly protesting. Instead of trivializing this man's mental issues by recycling easy-to-google tid-bits, we need to use reliable sources to explain why this even was noteworthy. Grayfell (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of other Wikipedia readers/editors, would you please define "encyclopaedically significant" without using the words "encyclopaedia", "significant", or any derivates thereof? Thanks. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I will link to Wikipedia:Notability (events) and WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not the one who proposed deleting it and I'm not saying the article needs to be deleted. I'm saying that since we do not and cannot report every newsworthy event which happens, we need to use sources to provide context. Grayfell (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no shortage of sources - it's being reported on every major international news channel. And there is no shortage of context. The man who set fire to himself has made it crystal clear why he did so. Do you have a personal interest in suppressing this historical event @Grayfell? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please define "historical event" without using the word "historical" or any derivatives thereof? Thanks. 2A02:C7C:D5F6:A300:D95F:3E32:4ACE:B482 (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can anyone, in particular you @Grayfell, tell Wikipedia's four-billion-monthly-users that a current event has (n.b. has, not "may have") "lasting significance"? Isn't that utterly illogical? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, opinions are mixed on how quickly we need to report on breaking news, but some events are more obviously significant than others. When in doubt, we use reliable, independent sources to decide, and all sources are judged in context. This means that we summarize what those sources are actually saying.
So again, I did not say this doesn't have lasting significance. I do not think the current article explains what this significance is or will be, or might be, or is likely to be etc... We cannot take this for granted just because it seems obvious, we need to use reliable sources to provide context. This is the same standard I use for any article. Grayfell (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this feels like a matter of improving the article, not deleting the article NomzEditingWikis (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so @NomzEditingWikis. It feels like deletion might, for a minority, be easier or more expedient than improving. However I am confident that common sense will prevail. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-immolation in and of itself does not automatically warrant Wiki status. Indeed, even its temporal and geographical proximity to current events alone do not necessarily automatically warrant this. This event may become more significant in time in a macro sense if it gets more media attention or political attention, thus bolstering its relevance, particularly if the subject succumbs to his injuries. The legitimacy (or lack thereof) of his political opinions are, in my mind, of questionable relevance. I think if his arguments or manifesto was more pertinent to the ongoing situation (say, a protest about one of the ongoing wars or the trial of Trump), I would be more inclined to have a harder vote for keep. As said, however, I vote for keep and review at a later, indeterminate date once the dust has settled. Electricmaster (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted[edit]

Simply a madman leaving a mark just for taking their own life while there was media attention. Newspaper news, not something worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. Gathering every minute detail of a story is not informative practice. 87.7.3.148 (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bro stop shoving your political ideology, we keeping it 92.251.25.117 (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is my political ideology? Do you know his political view? That is an editorial policy: simple news of tragic incidents and crime facts should not have a dedicated article on Wikipedia. --87.7.3.148 (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
your obviously trying to delete it because he was a rightists, if we delete it than we have to delete the Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell since it also was just a madman taking his life with some news 92.251.25.117 (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know anything about that suicide until now, and probably it's not worth a dedicated Wikipedia article like this. You don't know much about M.A.'s perspective, given that he was against the Republican far-right leader, Trump, as well. --87.6.191.182 (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@92.251.25.117 He was not right-wing. He thought partisan politics were all for show and identified himself as an anarcho-commumist on his Reddit. The key difference between Arazello and Bushnell is that one of them was protesting a war that is indisputably occurring, and the other was promoting a conspiracy with no evidence behind it. I'm split on whether this article should stay up, but there would definitely be a much stronger case if he did it over something that was real. NuanceQueen (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not worthy of a stand-alone Wikipedia article and maybe should be a subsection of an incident that happened during Trump's overall trial 1Bridget (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - This article should be merged into List of political self-immolations and Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. I don't think this self-immolation is notable enough for a stand-alone article. IJA (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Substack[edit]

Does anyone have a link to the article/manifesto he left on Substack? 104.158.48.139 (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked in one of the sources. Prepare to lose some brain cells: https://theponzipapers.substack.com/ -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we link to the note in the EL section? Afaict, it's not not allowed per WP:EL, but it's not exactly "tasteful" (per the guideline). Interpreting it as a suicide note makes me say, "yeah, no." SWinxy (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think about trying to work on expressing yourself in a manner worthy of the great encyclopaedia that is Wikipedia. Double negatives like "it's not not allowed" and "yeah, no" make a pitiful mockery of this paradigm-shifting project. Wikipedia is grounded in science (in the literal sense) and philosophy (in the literal sense). You seem intent on reducing our cherished, factual behemoth to the level of South Park and/or Bevis & Butt-head. I assume you know those "shows". I've thoroughly reviewed your contributions and you seem to be a useful WP:DRONE - so please keep up your efforts - people like you are essential to the project in your capacity to fulfil basic functions that higher members will not dignify with their attention. Never lose sight of the fact that self-improvement is usually possible with some effort, learning and application to the task at hand, even for someone like you. If you require assistance in raising your standards, never feel afraid or embarrassed to reach out to better editors. Good luck & good work! Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a as strange response to a valid point. Especially coming from someone who's new on wikipedia. 2A02:A212:87:1F80:3896:5400:732D:1866 (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested rename[edit]

By the numbers the AfD seems to be headed to "No Consensus". By the force of the arguments it may be closed as "Delete". If it is not, I would suggest renaming the article Self-immolation in Collect Pond park on BLP1E grounds. If this is really an article about the event and not the individual as the "keep" voters are arguing, the title should be changed to reflect that. It will also need to be rewritten to correspond to the focus on the event rather than the individual.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 05:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-immolation_of_Maxwell_Azzarello&oldid=1222059989"