Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Racine synagogue vandalism

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. Sandstein 06:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Racine synagogue vandalism

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE, of a legal nature, not analytical, and not sustained. Vandalism is also not a kind of crime that, in most cases, results in notability proving coverage. Merge into The Base (hate group)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Judaism, Michigan, and Wisconsin. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it appears to have some coverage which does not seem routine to me, if this is routine, that is pretty tragic. [Far right network orchestrated synagogue attacks, FBI says][1][2][3] Andre🚐 03:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's crediting that to the FBI, there is no unique analysis in any of those articles, and it's also only two months later, except for routine legal proceedings, WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Antisemitic vandalism is very common. It making the news is also very common. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FBI saying it was orchestrated goes to it not being run-of-the-mill hate vandalism. It also made it into this book and this one. These articles [4], [5] and this [6] show that it kept getting coverage over time for whatever reason. Andre🚐 03:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How long is the book coverage, and what is it in the context of? It won't load for me. The forward article is trial stuff and the other two are local. They're sustained though so that's a little better. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page 314 of Koehler (which is Cambridge University Press) and page 238 of Payne, the former cites the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel from 2020, the latter cites the Justice Department website press release. I cannot see the whole page just a snippet, but I can check to see if those books are kicking around a library or any other way to read them in full to read the surrounding context, but it is enough for me already that for 3-4 years this series of events is being covered somehow. I agree the Forward is a trial article but based on the content of it, plus the linked Ynet article that they cite which is dead for me right now but I will try to track down, I wouldn't call it WP:ROUTINE which if you read is about run-of-the-mill events like scheduled events or usually I think of product announcements. It does not automatically say all trial articles are routine coverage. Standard crime coverage would be routine like maybe something like this: [7] When the FBI is saying it is an orchestrated domestic terrorist group and people are using it as an example of an extremism trend in the US that is very not routine in my view. Andre🚐 03:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trial coverage is almost always... well, maybe routine isn't the right word, but primary? It contains no analysis and is uniformly just repeating the legal arguments. In cases where the trial is analyzed or the crime that is another thing, but that does not seem to be happening here. If you see more of what is in the books ping me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of them are sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Payne one has some, the OCR is just really bad. The issue with the source is that this is firmly primary as it is someone's memoir on having known all these people... there's nothing we can really use, it's all he experienced this and he said this to the terrorist leader and vice versa.

The other, which is secondary, says, in total, this:
The 22-year-old man from Milwaukee was arrested and charged in January 2020 with vandalizing a synagogue in September 2019 as part of a neo-Nazi group called The Base

PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given these sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a legitimate SPINOFF of The Base (hate_group)#Anti-Semitic activities. Coverage isn't routine at all. This doesn't mean that there is no problem with the article. There is. A week before the nomination it was moved from 2019 synagogue vandalism to its current name without debate. This move should be undone, unless a better target is found. gidonb (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand why you say the move should be undone. Undiscussed moves are allowed, and the old name was terrible. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, when the move is an obvious improvement, you can move the page. There is even a page for submitting such requests, when not technically feasible. This move is an obvious disimprovement. gidonb (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not routine? This received no more coverage than hundreds of other incidents yearly. ROUTINE mentions coverage of local crimes. We do not have a single other article for an act of vandalism. This fails every prong of WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not routine and not a local crime at all. Someone tempered with the article title one week before you nominated it. gidonb (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article title definitely should've been changed. There were literally dozens of synagogue vandalisms in the year of 2019. And yes, crimes like vandalism are routine. WP:ROUTINE "run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary events that do not stand out—are probably not notable." How is this more notable than any of the hundreds of other synagogue vandalisms that have briefly made the news, had no impact, and then were never given significant coverage again? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was an organized interstate attack attack on synagogues making the title change narrowing the attacks to Racine ridiculous. Even while the debate is ongoing you refuse to face the scale of the attack. It's not a coincidence that everyone says keep. Instead of BLUDGEONING under everyone's responses, maybe consider how you would do better next time? gidonb (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also consider the continued, national and international coverage: 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Those are all either breaking news, passing mentions in larger articles about the Base, or WP:ROTM "man convicted and we read off the prosecutor's press release" ... pretty much all crimes like this you're going to see the exact same kind of run of the mill coverage where it covers that the person was charged and then convicted which are mentioned in the local news. In absence of deeper analysis it does not help notability, or every public crime where someone was convicted in the United States would be notable, because that is often reported. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you do not check the articles you nominate and the sources you address thoroughly. gidonb (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) breaking news

2) passing mention

3) legal updates (man confesses) with no analysis

4) local news, and covered for two sentences (not sigcov)

5) legal updates (trial set for) with no analysis

6) legal updates (man convicted) with no analysis

7) mentioned for less than a sentence (this is all it says: "The group has been the subject of investigations and arrests on hate crime charges, including synagogue defacement" no further detail... if you think that is notability qualifying coverage I don't know what to tell you) this can easily be handled in 2-3 paragraphs at The Base article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point here was that the interest is wide in scope, sustained, and from many angles, including academic research. There are other sources that go into additional detail. gidonb (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing you provided does not demonstrate that. Three words of coverage that give no detail is not evidence of anything. Sad, yes, but plenty of sad things aren't notable. Per WP:NEVENT "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sustained and national and international interest is definitely here. You point at the stuff that isn't here. It's part of the BLUDGEONING under each opinion. gidonb (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom. Μinor incident. Τhe issue has no global resonance except American and, because of religion, Israeli. It also does not seem to be timelessly notable. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The international coverage that I shared was British, not Jewish at all. Sharing again. The article is elaborate. Please note also that much of the American interest was in New York and Georgia, while the attacks took place in the Midwest. gidonb (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is a global outlet and that reporter and coverage is based in America. Also it's a month after and is repeating the government with little other commentary, according to the federal government, accoridng to the complaint, nothing else. So that is one reason LM may have weighed it less. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop bludgenoing this page and answering for others. The Guardian is a newspaper published in London. The interest here was global. Non-Jews do read about attacks on synagogues. Also react to these. gidonb (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is imputing a definition of WP:ROUTINE that is not reflected in the policy. Continued coverage in national-focused outlets is more than WP:ROUTINE coverage as described. Longhornsg (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2025 (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.