Talk:Ryan Wesley Routh

In what universe is this person notable enough to have an entire Wikipedia page?

What the actual fuck? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you name someone who attempted or succeeded in assassinating a US President who doesn't have Wikipedia page? Yilloslime (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I hate to be involved in these kinds of discussions, but I'm obliged to answer: Michael Steven Sandford. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Michael Steven did not try to assassinate Trump 88.207.128.7 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"Michael Steven Sandford could face two years in prison after an incident in which he grabbed a police officer’s gun in an attempt to shoot Trump"; "The documents say Sandford later told a federal agent that he drove from California to Las Vegas with a plan to kill Trump." [1] Ostalgia (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah he didn't assasinate trump, he ATTEMPTED to assasinate trump TommyOrVarnt (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Yilloslime There's a truckload of them on List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots. 92.40.216.42 (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Touche.Yilloslime (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In short, it is convenient for passing the blame. Cbls1911 (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you reverse your position now that your question has been answered? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, if you attempt assasinate a former president who has a large community of supporters, of course you're gonna have your own wikipedia page TommyOrVarnt (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

He tried to Assassinate a former president, why should he not have a page? EarthDude (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Because nothing happened. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

He's clearly notable, with tonnes of reliable sources covering him now. 203.211.104.189 (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

By that logic every single NFL game should have a separate Wikipedia article because each of them is covered heavily by reliable sources. Do you not see how little that argument makes sense? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Presidential assassination attempts don't happen on a weekly schedule. You made that same argument on another talk page, and it was rejected there too. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:9159:FD7A:6994:A22B (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The presence of coverage on a particular topic by reliable sources does not in and of itself meet the standard for notability. You do understand that, don’t you? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines notability based on the availability of reliable sources independent of the subject. You do understand that, don't you? 2401:7000:CA09:4700:D98B:79D5:9029:DB3E (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That’s not true though. Notability is determined by the topics overall encyclopedic importance, not by how widely covered it is by reliable sources. The fact that an event, especially a recent event, is cover by reliable sources, does not in and of itself establish notability. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

From the general notability guideline: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." 2401:7000:CA09:4700:3431:DF14:6E36:939C (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course, on that same talk page you were misconstruing the article on the assassination attempt as being like a pro-Trump ad. You need to get over it. Covering an attempt on Trump's life is not an endorsement of Trump. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:9159:FD7A:6994:A22B (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to push the narrative that democrats are trying to kill trump is absolutely repulsive and reprehensible. trump was not harmed in this event. The alleged party didn’t even see trump at any point. This isn’t notable for Wikipedia. This recentism and an attempt to leverage Wikipedia for political purposes with an election near. Plain and simple. I may lose this argument and not get my way, but I am right and I stand by my position. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is pushing a narrative. Wikipedians are simply documenting the reliably sourced facts about notable topics. Censoring true information because you don't like it politically goes against WP:NPOV. Also, there's been a deletion nomination, and the result was in favour of keeping the article. The debate is settled, and your side lost. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:D98B:79D5:9029:DB3E (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Not once did I say that anything whatsoever should be censored. Literally not once. I said that this entire article could have simply been a sentence or two in the security incidents article and 100% does not warrant two entire separate articles about this. I may have lost, but I am not wrong. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Trying to downgrade coverage for political reasons is a form of censorship and goes against WP:NPOV. Also, the article now has equivalents in 6 other language editions of Wikipedia, so a multilingual consensus in favour of notability is clearly emerging. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:3431:DF14:6E36:939C (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Attempted assassination charges are being planned by prosecutors

The New York Times is reporting on the prosecutor's intentions. Here is a free link to the article: U.S. to Seek Attempted Assassination Charge for Trump Golf Course Suspect. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Routh son arrest

This was present in the article and then removed per BLPCRIME. I can see the interpretation of that policy, however the investigation into his father directly led to his arrest and he was interviewed by the press in regards to his father. I think that makes him relevant to the article regarding his father. poketape (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I agree that Routh's son getting arrested should be kept, considering that the arrest was reported in a variety of sources. In the recent NPR article, for example, it writes - "Oran publicly came to his dad’s defense after his arrest last week, saying in a statement that "'I don’t have any comment beyond a character profile of him as a loving and caring father and an honest, hardworking man.'". Also, his father's crime WAS the reason why he was arrested in the first place. CNN Reports "According to the complaint, FBI agents were searching Oran Routh’s residence and devices on September 21, days after his father was arrested, 'in connection with an investigation unrelated to child exploitation.'" Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep cuz of the severity of the charges. if he was arrested for petty theft or stealing autos or something id support removing it but this is serious at implies this craziness runs i nthe family Kasperquickly (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Remove - Notability is not inherited (literally, in this case). The son's actions and arrest have nothing to do with why Ryan Wesley Routh is notable, and it is irrelevant if the discovery of the son's alleged acts stemmed from the investigation of his father. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe that is irrelevant to inclusion in the article about his father. Relevant text: "Caution: This section is not a content guideline or policy. Nor does it apply to speedy deletion or proposed deletion, as they are not deletion discussions. It only applies to arguments to avoid at WP:Articles for deletion." and "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article." This is a discussion on being included in an article, not for a seperate article to be made. poketape (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

What? Jason Allen Alexander might be considered a public figure, but hardly applies to an accused child of another accused person. This isn't a valid argument. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

My point was that the section of the Notability policy you're referring to (Notability is inherited) specifically says that it is not a content guideline or policy, it only applies to articles for deletion. I don't see anything within that policy that states his son cannot receive a section on the article. Additionally, that policy ends with the following: "Also, notability not being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion; subjects can still be notable by other means and even when they are not, often such articles can be merged or redirected to the article on the associated subject (see also the Just not notable section above)," which again, is what's intended, as his son is being added as a section to his article (a hypothetical article merge you could say if the son's article did exist). poketape (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Remove - The son's arrest is of only tangential relevance to the father's article, and the son has not received enough coverage in reliable sources for us to consider him notable in his own right. 203.211.104.189 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Not familiar enough with BLP policy, but I want to note that I think this arrest could be indicative of his parenting style, plus the event was directly catalyzed by his actions. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 11:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It would only be one's opinion that an arrest of a child is "indicative" of parenting style; further, and arrest is not a conviction. This argument isn't valid. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Remove. Routh's son is not independently notable, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from his father. The son should be considered under WP:BLPCRIME and his charge redacted from his father's article. WWGB (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The Not inherited policy I addressed above so I don't want to restate my argument for that, but please read the text above and address that if you find it necessary to do so. As for BLPCRIME, my opinion on that policy is that the son was investigated as part of the father's investigation; he was not investigated independently. That to me is what makes the difference and makes him relevant. My argument on the matter is based not their relationship by blood (although the son did participate in an interview defending his father, adding to his notability), it is the relationship through investigation. If the father had a friend who went through the same events, I'd say the same thing. poketape (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)