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 keep. The "delete" arguments are less numerous and weaker. The "delete" side argues that this was not an actual or serious assassination attempt. That may or may not be so, but it is not relevant for inclusion according to our policies and guidelines for articles about events. These rules are based on the amount, quality of an event's coverage in reliable sources, and its lasting importance. While there may well be arguments against keeping the article on these grounds, the "delete" side by and large does not make them. They also allege BLP problems, but these seem to be largely an issue of the title accusing the man concerned of attempted assassination, of which he was not in fact convicted. This can be remedied by renaming the article, and deletion is not required to resolve this problem. Sandstein 19:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Mention of this was recently removed from Donald Trump. While there is media coverage, this doesn't appear to be a serious act and politicians are constantly confronted with random threats. This wasn't a serious threat similar to Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. This was just some wish by a random guy, which has been built up via the media desire for buzz and clicks. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 03:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 03:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - needs rework/expansion though to be Assassination threats against Donald Trump rather than just attempts, an expansion of List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots in the same way that Assassination threats against Barack Obama is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It may not have raised much of a fuss in the US, but it apparently did in the UK, enough to call for a change in the law. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarityfiend, I am curious if there were only calls or an actual change in the law. It should be covered if this article is kept. No comments on the merits of the AfD. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 22:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to cover WP:GNG. Sources looks ok.BabbaQ (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the article is comprehensively sourced and has clear notability given the extent of media coverage. The nominator's rationale does not refer to any of the reasons for deletion. McPhail (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was not an assassination attempt, per the sources, the prosecutor, and the later words of the perpetrator after his psychotic episode subsided. If there's significant content it could be merged into relevant articles about mental health, jurisprudence, or other suitable subjects. Otherwise, mentions in the press do not describe an assassination attempt, and the same article could be written about thousands of non-notable prosecutions, all sourced about as well as this one. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is entirely inaccurate. At his trial, Sandford stated "I tried to take a gun from a policeman to shoot someone with, and I'm pleading guilty". McPhail (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • While that might confirm his intent, does this rise to an actual "assassination attempt"? Best case, this should be trimmed and listed in an article that outlines "threats" to Trump. This really seems to be a case of WP:UNDUE for this case that hasn't risen to any level of major focus by the media or even Trump himself. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The incident received extensive coverage in the UK media. WP:UNDUE does not apply here - it is about balance within an article. McPhail (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nonsense. And don't mislead editors who are not fully familiar with the sources and the facts. He did not plead guilty to attempted murder. He was convicted of having had possession of a firearm. No assault. No attempted anything. You think perpetrators of attempts on the life of a US political figure get 6 months in minimum security? All the initial coverage as an "assassination attempt" was revised and discarded. The only issue the media ultimately covered here is how to treat a psychotic young Aspergers guy who had a breakdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sandford himself said, under oath, "I tried to take a gun from a policeman to shoot someone with". McPhail (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not all shootings are murders or even attempts, and most murders are not assassinations. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • If that's all you've got, McPhail, you haven't got much. "Someone" is not Trump (did you miss that?) and your argument is only a little stronger if he referred to Trump elsewhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Following his release from prison, Sandford stated: "My friends had said Trump needed to be stopped. They said he was going to destroy the country — but it was the voices in my head which were telling me to kill him. Then one day I saw he was speaking in Las Vegas and I decided to drive there and do something myself." He also stated "The voices were telling me I needed to do a practice run before trying to kill Trump." McPhail (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • That source is a News Corp. tabloid not suitable for such content.See "The Sun" at RSN. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per my comments on the last AfD from three years ago: "Has received consistent coverage since it happened, enough so that the BBC aired a documentary on it six months later." We could argue about the seriousness of the attempt but that is totally unrelated to notability.LM2000 (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The documentary was not about assassination. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The documentary is titled "The Brit Who Tried to Kill Trump". The BBC introduce it with the line "In June 2016, Michael Sandford, an unassuming 20-year-old from the quiet town of Dorking, Surrey, attempted to assassinate Donald Trump.". McPhail (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tabloid garbage, promotional and primary for the documentary. Look at what you linked for a BLP discussion. Seriously? Here's the article that describes the documentary. It is about mental health, not assassination. [1]. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The incident passes WP:GNG and the article is well-sourced. No policy-grounded reason for deletion. — JFG ^talk 17:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced article; didn't raise the needle in the US but seems to have been big in the UK. I do think a move could be useful however, perhaps Attempted attack of Donald Trump (2016), or Attempted attack on Donald Trump (While many sources call it an assassination, many more simply call it an attack, and it doesn't seem to rise to the level of many other assassination attempts). Other suggestions welcome. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's reasonable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Well sourced, meets GNG, had an entire documentary created about it. If reliable sources are covering this, it deserves an article, so this needs to stay. Jdcomix (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdcomix: Please examine the sources. The "whole documentary" was not about any assassination. It was about mental health, social services, and the courts. And it was just a cable/internet show that was slapped together and has vanished from public view. Like a segment of "Dateline" or "60 Minutes" in the USA. Also, if you'll look at the print media citations, they're all from the time immediately after the incident, before the facts were known and the charges were reduced to almost nothing. There has been no ongoing coverage or discussion of this inceident, because it's not notable. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm not opposed to renaming the article, but it's received enough coverage to keep the article. I'll probably start a move discussion on the talk page tonight or tomorrow morning when I think of a name. Jdcomix (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-name. I think that the topic is keep-worthy, but the title just seems wrong. It's really very much different from the Reagan example. I haven't quite come up with a proper move target, but I think something along the lines of an "incident", or something like the examples given just above by CaptainEek, would be much better. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Possibly the title of the article could be changed, but the topic is notable, received extensive media coverage and has multiple reliable sources (The New York Times, Miami Herald, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, BBC News etc.) Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-name if kept. - Neither he nor anyone else was charged with or convicted of attempting to assassinate Trump or anyone else. But Wikipedia noneless uses a headline which unequivocally says there was an attempted assassination. I thought we were better than this. Moriori (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename. "Attempted assassination" is inaccurate and belittles actual attempted assassinations of presidents like Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Teddy Roosevelt, all of whom had guns fired in attempts to kill them, and several of whom were wounded. In conclusion, this was a notable incident but not an actual attempted assassination. Worth noting is that attempted assassination of the president is a specific crime. Lynette Fromme was convicted of this though she never fired a bullet, and served 34 years in prison. This guy was not charged with attempted assassination, served six months on lesser charges, and was deported. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more or less innocuous if it's properly renamed, but all the BLP disparaging descriptions of the incident would also need to be removed. Is it really notable when the only press coverage occurred right at the time of the incident and before the facts were understood. Many of the cited sources do not reflect the later descriptions of what happened. @McPhail: - Why did you create this article? What do you feel is notable about the incident? What brought it to your attention? I am not understanding your devotion to the current narrative in this article. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well sourced; no case for failing WP:NOT has been made. Not overly concerned about the name; in my ENGVAR "attempted assassination" is a reasonable description; but would prefer a rename or move discussion to be held on the article Talk page. How are we for precipitation of the frozen kind? - Ryk72 ^talk 02:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this should probably be WP:SNOW closed at this point. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should resolve renaming, redirect, etc. No rush. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-name if kept. Morimori is on the right path. Despite being relatively well-informed about that person's public events, the first I heard about this being considered an "assassination attempt" was when I learned of the existence of this article. The US Secret Service is very sensitive about attempts on the life of the chief executive of the US, & unless they label an event an "assassination attempt", I find it hard to consider that event one. And were it not for having an effect in UK public affairs, I'd go as far as question this event's notability. People get ejected from public events all of the time for various reasons. -- llywrch (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for sheer WP:BLP reasons. This entire article exists to accuse a named, otherwise-unknown living person of a major crime that he has not even been charged with, much less convicted of. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep Article easily passes WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:SUSTAINED (albeit the longer term coverage was mostly in the UK). Sorry, and while assuming good faith on the part of the OP, this is not a close call. I strongly suggest a speedy close. Discussion of a possible name change can be carried out on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• obvious delete The characterization of this as a serious assassination attempt is patently untrue and there's no "balance" to be achieved between political mouthpiece conservative sources and the rest of the world. On top of it the thing reeks of a certain kind of recentism since it was forgotten about in the US almost as soon as it had happened. The BLP angle is also considerable. Maybe a new article could be written with a more accurate focus on the UK ramifications, but this version of it needs to be gotten rid of, without a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in your comment represents a WP:PAG based argument for deletion as all of the issues you raise are essentially fixable. See also WP:Deletion is not cleanup. The article subject easily passes our notability guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though all the coverage happened within a year of the event and there's no identified topic for the article after cleanup? Asking you as an experienced Admin for guidance on this. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The news coverage was extensive and of sufficient duration to ring the WP:N bell. And Notability is not temporary. I do agree that whether this qualifies as an actual assassination attempt is debatable. Some sort of name change may be desirable. But that is not relevant to the question of whether or not this event passes our notability guidelines, which it clearly does. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion There is no question that the article passes our notability guidelines, but legitimate concerns have been raised as to whether or not the event in question was an actual assassination attempt. I would suggest that the article subject be broadened. There were at least two incidents during the campaign that involved Mr. Trump's security. This one and another where somebody tried to rush him. The latter one probably does not meet our guidelines for a stand alone article. There may have been others. I wasn't paying close attention to this sort of thing at the time. I would suggest that this page be broadened to cover security related incidents during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. A new name could be applied reflecting the broader focus with this title being left as a redirect. Courtesy ping SPECIFICO, Mangoe, NatGertler

• While I have no objection to their being an article on security issues during the Trump campaign, assuming that there is some source article that points to more than just one such incident (so that combining them isn't WP:SYNTH), I do have a strong objection to the current title being used as a redirect to that page. Again, this would be being used in Wikipedia voice to suggest that a living individual attempted an assassination that he has not been charged with, much less convicted of. Really, the page should be blanked even while this discussion continues. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this was a security incident. It was a crazed kid flailing at a guard and knocked to the ground. That's all. He never got the gun, let alone did anything violent with or without it. I also question whether this had extensive or lasting coverage. One can find news reports of countless arrests and then more coverage at the time of the trial. In this case, the so-called "documentary" was a tabloid bit on a web channel run by BBC, now taken down, that dealt with mental health issues, not assassination. It's cruel that a single editor has written 90-95 percent of the text of an article that depicts this young man as a would-be assassain, and I'm stunned that the WP community is apparently content to publish this. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that post-release Sandford has continued to acknowledge that his intent was to kill Trump. McPhail (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming it aligns with WP:BLP, perhaps the article should just be titled Michael Steven Sandford and then it discusses this incident and resulting attention appropriately. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That raises WP:BLP1E concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. BLP1E would be a showstopper for an article about the young man. That said, someone trying to grab a gun from a police officer at a rally for a presidential campaign is definitely a security incident, whether they got the gun or not. I don't remember any, but if there were any incidents involving other candidates the article could even be broadened to Security incidents during the 2016 US Presidential Campaign or something similar. Whether or not the term assassination attempt could be retained in a redirect would depend on whether it was employed by reliable secondary sources. That's what we go by. Our personal opinions are neither here nor there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were other security incidents: Man charges security barricade at Trump rally in Dayton --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After pondering BLP, specifically NAME and CRIME, I am inclined to think it would be best if the man's name was redacted from the article and replaced with appropriate pronouns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think one difficulty we face is the lack of coverage once all the facts became known. Really all we have is the coverage of the sentencing at which the judge said he did not think the kid tried to commit a violent crime. Almost all the sources are from a period of confusion made worse by the kid's statements after he naively waived his Miranda Rights and the prosecutor was making inflated allegations that he and the grand jury soon dropped. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not an assassination attempt by far. Overall a non-notable incident not worthy of its own Wikipedia article.--Darwinek (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_White_House_intrusion should probably be deleted too, as it was clearly not an actual intrusion, rather it was merely an "undocumented visitor" 173.120.162.159 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as the gun wasn't in the hands of the person & wasn't even pointed at Trump. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of the many sources discussing the incident. The name of the article is not a reason for deletion, as it can be changed if necessary. Personal beliefs about what does and does not constitute an attempted assassination are irrelevant. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename if kept. I have always thought this incident did not deserve an article, but discusssnts here make a good case for GNG based on the coverage in the UK. However the incident certainly does not warrant the title "Assassination attempt". I think the suggestion above for an article "threats against" similar to the one about Obama was excellent, and should be done if the article is kept (on which I am now neutral). MelanieN alt (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-sourced, reasonably high-profile crime. Dimadick (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but merge to Donald Trump without redirect, rename if kept. I think it shouldn't have a stand-alone page per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a minor incident, and yes, of course it received press coverage, but I don't think it passes the WP:10YEARTEST. I think the amount of content devoted to this minor incident in a stand-alone article is WP:UNDUE, and the content instead properly belongs at the biography of Donald Trump (or maybe one of the child articles, like about his campaign), and so it should be merged. I do not think there should be a redirect, because this title is totally bogus. If the article is kept, I support renaming it, as it was not an assassination attempt and is not described as such by the consensus of reliable sources. The page, with this title, should be deleted, because we are giving readers the false impression that there was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump's life. – Levivich 04:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable per SIGCOV. Any such incident related to a POTUS in notable. Lightburst (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename as the largest BLP violation I think I've ever seen here -- the title virtually accusing a named living individual of a crime they have not been charged with, when a court found them guilty of disorderly conduct. Sitting here writing this, I'm tempted to boldly blank the page or redact the individual's name, but that'd probably be unnecessarily disruptive. What about "2016 Trump rally pistol-grabbing incident", or Security Incident titles as suggested above. Feoffer (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.