Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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 with an early close per WP:SNOW. It may have been WP:TOOSOON when the article was nominated, but there is clearly now sufficient sourcing for an independent article, and the original reasons for nomination no longer apply (see the avalanche of keep votes, even completely ignoring the SPAs and potential canvassees). (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone[edit]



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

Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
Capitol Hill Automonous Zone - (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Free Capitol Hill - (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. A case of WP:TOOSOON and uncertain longevity, especially as "declared" communities are common parts of Seattle-area protests. Mainstream media has not made specific coverage of the subject, only making passing mentions. SounderBruce 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the page! It's informative and really helpful. As a Seattleite, I was looking for information about what the heck is going on in Capitol Hill, and this answered all my questions better than any news article is ever likely to. Definitely keep this page up. It's doing exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to do - keep people informed!
  • Delete or Merge This is worth a couple of lines on the Capitol Hill (Seattle) page since it is a newsworthy event and perhaps a subsection in Defund the Police movement page. Detailing out what is essentially a part of a larger movement does not merit an entire article, especially with sections describing the structure of this political entity that will not survive. They clearly are not going to paves its own streets, pay its own sewer and water, and inform the city that all the businesses in their zone will no longer pay city taxes but instead will pay them to the autonomous zone (whether those businesses want to be a part of it or not). If by some miracle some permanent agreement is reached with the city and this area incorporates independently, then they can put up an independent article--OriEri (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge This is obviously notable however it's not something I would consider important. Give it a few more weeks before it collapses. Maybe we can list it as notable failures, lol. --Gabbobler (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)gabbobler[reply]
  • Do not support This is a notable development in not only the Black Lives Matter protests, but the state of the US. Regardless of the success of this location, it is not unlike the MOVE community, Catalonia, or the Paris Commune, which would be unthinkable to delete. This zone has received news coverage and been acknowledged by authorities local to the area. The page contains no violations and does not fit neatly into the category of the George Floyd protests because the demands are so much larger than that.--Lunac1312 (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Lunac1312 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Support I refreshed the page and saw the tag. There hasn't been any coverage yet, we will have to wait and see if this goes anywhere. Buffaboy talk 04:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support, for the the reasons stated by Mt.FijiBoiz. CHAZ is a significant site and event in the US police abolition movement --DefaultFree (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support, This looks like it's going somewhere, I'm not sure it's formatted correctly, as its more an ongoing event, but the national news will likely have this covered by tomorrow. I'd say wait and see. It think we are going to see a sharp rise in "support", and "criticism" in the main stream media so this will likely enter the political arena as a talking point, and I would anticipate "edit wars". Probably some Sr. Editors will be needed to sort this all out, and organize the article properly. (Should also add a note to why the Seattle Mayor lost the reelection, however that is a speculative future event, and not relevant.)Jzesbaugh (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, (Follow Up/Addendum) Watching this unfold through social media accounts. There may be some censorships issues here. I'd definitely wait for more articles if they come to light. What I'm seeing is people sitting in the street watching a movie, supposedly in this area. These are social media links mostly. Why this may be notable is the stark contrast to the scenes of gassing and violence we have seen in confrontations with the police. The reason it might make more sense to consider for merging is that the contrast may be something to note. Again the issue here is how wide spread the coverage is.Jzesbaugh (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, (Addendum 2) Because of the politicol nature of this issue is should be looked at from a perspective possibly not covered in wiki rules. Is the creation of the article effecting the event itself. Ex. does a page for it on Wiki actually contribute to its growth, or fueling the fire. At the time of creation of the article there were several sources for it. The article itself serves as a media reference and source for potential media research into the event. This is something to think about with a political article of this nature. The other issue is that this is a real event, and may for what ever reason not be being covered. There are some deep considerations here about how Wiki can lend 'Credibility' to something that may not yet be worthy of it. I think that debate needs to be looked at or if such a debate exists in wiki guidelines it needs to be framed out here. At current there are 19 sources some look good and some international. This leads to the second cited issue, censorship, which is the other side of the political coin here. The fact this event/location has been visited by politicians who seem to acknowledge it lends some consideration to the censorship and political aspects at play here. The article to be KEPT needs to do a good job discussing the political interplay going on and the relevant issues or "history" involved with its creation. The article as it stands does NOT do this. We cannot know if this will exist in 2 weeks time, however its historical relevance will likely be the determining factor in if the article is kept. The second will be any subsequent political changes and fall out. Both those considerations would make the article extremely relevant, as it stands it seems to fall into a murky PR area, where it's almost a promotional tool. However it can and likely should be salvaged with an unbiased historical context, as well as political implications related to the broader discussion going on in American and world politics. The fact that some of the sources are international further the case that there is historical and international notability. I think once the bias if filtered out there is an article here. Jzesbaugh (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into an existing article about the George Floyd protests; even if the article may give it too much credibility as a "nation", the creation of the group is covered in multiple reliable sources. Passengerpigeon (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically where I landed, if deleted its just going to find its way back in some other form tomorrow, it's really starting to cycle on social media. The Cruz tweet, verified, is going to see to that.Jzesbaugh (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support This is an ongoing development and is likely to last several days or longer. Given the numerous conflicting reports and coverage of protests across the United States, removing this article could potentially be seen as an endorsement of censorship. I recommend leaving the article unchanged for 2 weeks, or as a live 'change log' included on the article to account for continuing developments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.122.100 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I believe that there is enough media coverage to merit an article. Juno (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the link above is to a tweet alleging a statement that someone may have heard on a police scanner and does not meet our WP:RS standards. Chetsford (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpenMHZ doesn't meet our standards for WP:RS and conducting original audio analysis of walkie-talkie transmissions is WP:OR. Chetsford (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully acknowledge that OpenMHZ is original research, and I was posting that for your personal factual edification, not to meet notability standards. My point about CHS stands. --DefaultFree (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Recommend merging into overarching article(s) on protests. This is significant enough to merit a section header in a protest/George Floyd Protest article, but doesn't meet WP:N by itself and definitely fits the criteria for TooSoon. As an aside, I live literally blocks from here, and its a local joke. The 'signs' mentioned are cardboard signs and spray paint. It may merit it owns article in the future, should it actually be recognized by the city etc, but for now it's just a bunch of loud people on Twitter insisting that this is A Thing(tm). And its not. --IShadowed (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd err on the side of inclusion this time. The present moment doesn't feel like just another demonstration to me. The closest thing in memory is Occupy Wall Street, and the Occupy Seattle article still stands, and seems pretty good too. Groceryheist (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per MtFijiBoiz and Groceryheist's Keep votes. Geodude6 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Mentions in WP:RS are largely fleeting or incidental. No objection to the article being recreated if it receives significant, dedicated coverage in multiple major media outlets, or if the "Zone" still exists in a few months but it is very much WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TBH, this is kinda silly. I live in Seattle, and I have friends who live within the border stated in the article, and none of us had ever even HEARD of this until one of my overseas friends sent the article to us. This isn't a real thing. The precinct mentioned in the article on Capitol Hill isn't actually closed or abandoned, just has reduced numbers of police officers, and it wasn't ordered by the mayor at all, but by the police chief as a way to deescalate, as Cal Anderson Park is a starting point for a significant number of protests in Seattle (they start at Cal Anderson, which is next to the light rail and has easy access and large spaces to gather and head downtown, which is downhill, so relatively easy marching) and didn't want to have a significant police presence directly next to the start of protests. No one in Seattle would ever consider this a real thing. The article definitely should be deleted, or, at the very bare minimum, merged into an article about the protests in general and given very little mention. Jeancey (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you been to the CHAZ? The precinct is abandoned and completely boarded up. Hippiecow (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extensive reliable source coverage per Mt.FijiBoiz. Issan Sumisu (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even in the I guess somewhat likely event of the protest winding down/ the self declared "autonomous zone" being disbanded, this was still a significant development during the protests, and there are several sources covering it's existance, and in more detail. The argument that it is too soon because things like this are likely to be temporary doesn't hold water because A: even if it is not, it was still a notable event, and B: you can't see the future, you never know what this might become. As long as it has the proper citations in place here and now (and I think it does) there is no reason to delete it, and pushes to delete it may be politically motivated. Sarr Cat 07:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really sure about detail.... the RT source is the only one that really talks about it. In the other sources that even mention the name, it's mentioned once, and in each case it's mentioned as being among other signs. It's like someone googled "Capital Hill Autonomous Zone" and then used every result without reading what the articles actually said on the topic. There doesn't really seem to be any actual information about the zone (aside from RT which isn't really considered a reliable source). Jeancey (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support as the establishment of the autonomous zone is a notable event with sufficient secondary reliable source coverage, not in violation of WP:TOOSOON. Bailmoney27 talk 07:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would question more the reliability of the establishment of the autonomous zone, rather than the sufficiency of the secondary coverage, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to support and actual official thing..... Jeancey (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does wikipedia actually care if something is real or not when it comes to articles? Plenty of fake things have articles on them, including fake things meant to be passed off as real things that they arent. Thats not reason for speedy deletion; that is reason to edit the article with sourced information that asserts this is fake. Such as how the PragerU page specifically mentions that they arent a University and just wanna look like one or more evidently... See the wikipedia page for Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. Ya wanna claim this isnt going on and is a big hoax by twitterers and facebookers? Find the sources to prove your claim and edit the article; dont delete it.75.164.70.117 (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does wikipedia actually care if something is real or not when it comes to articles? - Not in the way you mean, no. My cat is real but it doesn't get a WP article. The mere existence of a thing doesn't qualify it for a WP article. Please see WP:N. Chetsford (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support - Flawed AFD. WP:TOOSOON is not a deletion policy. Also, "mainstream media" is an illegitimate benchmark for WP:RS or WP:V. Also, the statement that mainstream media hasn't covered it (assuming that was a valid deletion reason) is just false: Fox CHS KIRO Telegraph (AU) Stranger Red State 8 - Keith D. Tyler 07:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Jzesbaugh noted, today there are more: Reason 10 11 FastCompany Stranger (2) Seattle Times The Hill NewsMax (fwiw) KFI AM KUOW RCP JDD (French) Keith D. Tyler 21:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list.. goes ... on: Seattle Times

KOMO Insider CNN "Lack of mainstream media coverage" is no longer a valid deletion argument here, if it ever was one - Keith D. Tyler 06:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - existing primarily as a form of protest, pulling it off to be a separate article is at this point unneeded - attach it to an appropriate article and only split in line with SPINOFF or, if it does turn out to be a more distinct body that exists after the protests end, then that would also warrant it. I'm also concerned by a veritable avalanche of SPAs, plus a number of completely non-policy arguments above Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and expand to include content about "Occupation of the East Precinct" CHAZ is two days old. It is, in my view, probably Too Soon here - I'm not sure accurate RS's exist here, given how young CHAZ is.
However, the broader set of battles over the East Precinct are *unquestionably* notable. There was a near shooting there, several uses of tear gas, and outrage that will almost certainly bring and end to SPD's right to use tear gas, given how much it's impacted surrounding communities. I'm sure plenty of RS exist talking about the broader occupation.
If CHAZ makes it through the week, it will probably be worth revisiting the question of the name of the article, and we can have more accurate and in-depth information in RS.
For now, I think it's hard to argue that it's not too soon in re: CHAZ. Cam94509 (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be any occupation of the precinct, and from what I can tell this has been declared by protesters occupying tents in the park, and not the permanent residents for the two blocks (and only two residential buildings) that is contained within the zone. Is there a reliable source attesting to the authority of the protesters to declare an autonomous zone over an area they don't actually live in? If I declare an autonomous zone over the entirety of Berlin, would I qualify for a page because I tweeted about it and a live blog of protests included that tweet? That's all that seems to have happened here. There was a tweet showing graffiti saying "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" and some live blogs of Seattle protests had tweets regarding this.... The protesters are also demanding the budget of the police be cut. This doesn't seem to conform with a declaration of an autonomous zone, since if they are no longer part of Seattle they have no reason to demand a budget lowered... they aren't part of it. This seems, logically, to imply that this zone isn't actually a real thing and is just a talking point, since they are still acting as a part of Seattle. Jeancey (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; you cud make such an article if ya did that and got it spread enough to get picked up by various local Berlin news stations and the like. Someone wud then come along and show that the claim of an AZ is false (using sources; not their own experiences) and edit such info into the article so that everyone reading the article about Jeancey's Autonomous Zone & Zoo in Berlin (JAZZ in Berlin) is well aware of all the information about JAZZ in Berlin's potential lack of validity as well as the claims that it exists. And then the people will know the facts and be able to come to a conclusion about whether existence of the JAZZ in Berlin is a hoax or not.75.164.70.117 (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even a long-standing anarchist-ridden place like Exarcheia is stated as a "commune", even if there the situation has always been even more critical. Fairly silly to consider this new teenager thing as a "commune". Delete it and write a paragraph into the "Capitol Hill (Seattle)" page. EntroDipintaGabbia (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It’s important that this page stays up as things develop on the ground. Even when the CHAZ is inevitably reoccupied by the US, this page should stay up for posterity. Sources will be added later but for now, information is constantly coming in from all over and is difficult to organize. 166.182.80.71 (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Autonomous Zone is, regardless of political persuasion, an extremely unique product of the 2020 US protests against police brutality and systemic racism. It deserves to be preserved on Wikipedia as an instance of a police force (presumably temporarily) abandoning a core section of a major city, and an ad hoc community forming in their absence. Porcelainbee (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Porcelainbee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note to closing admin: please consider moving to draft if the consensus is for delete, hopefully some of these eager editors can work on it there. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per the sources listed above; this is a notable development and should be documented. JiYongChaos (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There has been significant media attention on this area to be considered a notable development. While some of the information in the article may be questionable, the event itself is legitimate, important, and unique. While this may not be an autonomous zone by definition, it has been called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, and thus the title should stay as well. (anon) 4:01, 10 June 2020 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.67.223.98 (talk)
  • Keep. A lot of people are talking about this, and there are credible sources something is happening there. --Boklm (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now or Merge if no further developments. IMO, WP:TOOSOON does not apply here as there are other secondary sources, but its notability as a AZ could be brought into question if it doesn't survive the week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teh.cmn (talk • contribs) 12:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Teh.cmn (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
I, uh, that's a new one. Neutral feelings on, and unconnected to, the topic, and merely responding to the AFD, and certainly not here due to WP:CANVAS 🤣 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teh.cmn (talk • contribs) 16:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because I remember when y'all deleted the 2019 Bolivian Coup article and look how well that went (Hint: There was a coup) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.31.40 ([[User talk:#top|talk]]) 13:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — 24.192.31.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Per everyone else's points here; the CHAZ is the subject of news articles (Seattle Times; NYPost) and seems notable in the history of Capitol Hill, Seattle. Hippiecow (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In my opinion, the original rationale for deletion given by the user who proposed AFD is correct—this is a) a relatively clear case of WP:TOOSOON given that the zone in question formed merely 2 days ago, b) likely to ultimately become a case of WP:NOTABILITY given that it is one of several previous "declared" communities that have spontaneously formed and eventually disappeared in the course of various past Seattle protests, and c) so far has not merited any mainstream media coverage aside from assorted local coverage and minor, intentionally incendiary articles from Fox News, RT, Sputnik and similar outlets (WP:Reliability). There were similar cases of moderately-sized "declared" zones that appeared momentarily in residential areas during the 1999_Seattle_WTO_protests, but none of these have ultimately existed long enough or been impactful enough to merit full articles.
Furthermore, CHAZ has been added to the "Current Examples" section of the Permanent autonomous zone article, but does not have the same degree of notability and longevity as any of the other examples presented alongside it, past or present. Rojava, MAREZ and all other instances of PAZ from the Permanent autonomous zone article besides CHAZ have existed for at least 7 years, and most have a clear historical or geographic significance and an accompanying media footprint spanning years or decades that is noted in their article. By contrast, CHAZ has only existed for 2 days and so far has not been consequential enough to merit mainstream media coverage beyond that stated above; frankly, I believe it is unlikely it will attract such coverage in the future based on the ephemeral nature of previous Seattle occupied zones. In addition, all other PAZ examples feature documentation of an active decision by the members of community living in the autonomous zone to secede from their broader state and form an independent commune (for example PAZ Rojava became independent at the beginning of the Syrian Civil War as a result of action by Kurdish nationalists, PAZ Black Bear Ranch was explicitly constructed as a self-sufficient commune by Richard Marley and his followers, etc.), but in the case of CHAZ it is unclear how many residents of the zone have consented to its independence or are even aware of it, and I was unable to find any declaration of it as a PAZ from any official source representing the occupying protesters. Anecdotally, from other entries provided by Capitol Hill residents on this page it seems that some residents are not aware of the existence of CHAZ or do not recognize it despite living in the region.
In summary, I think this article as of now is a case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTABILITY and has not existed long enough nor does it exist concretely enough to merit a mention on the Permanent autonomous zone article. I would recommend deleting now and revisiting it in a few months or one year, and creating the article then if it still exists. Kaltrops (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Kaltrops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - it seems to be notable enough, has gained coverage. Can revisit the discussion in a month or two if things fizzle out, of course. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agreeing with the comments above that this topic infringes on WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. It should also be noted that - given this topic is so new - there is no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the topic. As far as the WP:GNG argument is concerned, topics that meet GNG are presumed to be notable, an issue in this case given that next to none of the WP:RS coverage of this topic seems to be indicating it will have long-term, encyclopedic significance. Deletion now is the best option, and if in the future more sources continue to sustain coverage of it then the article can be recreated. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If this was a widely reported weather event we wouldn't be arguing about this: It'd stay with a "current events" banner. WP:NOTE only requires that it has significant coverage (opposition party news like Fox, international publications like Daily Telegraph), said coverage be reliable in order to establish a firm ground for notability, and the coverage to be independent to avoid WP:IBA. And if the autonomous zone disappears, WP:NOTTEMP - the notability doesn't go away. If we later determine, after the whole thing is done, that the article can't sustain a high-quality page, then and only then should we consider merging the page into the collected autonomous zones page. ◗●◖ falkreon (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it already seems to have had notable coverage, and appears to be gaining even more coverage - and it is a significant development in the protests. Considering that Wikipedia is almost always going to be one of the first places people look to for a reliable overview of an event, it would be best to keep the page up for now. As per some of the other comments, if it fizzles out, then the page could be merged, but for now, erring on the side of caution would be keeping the page and improving it.NHCLS (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's been extensive coverage of this topic. It's notable and it belongs here. Bluedude588 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability established by reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of ones political views or opinions of the various movements and circumstances involved, this article may very much be of historical importance, even if the commune doesn't last long. Burlingk (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mt.FijiBoiz, Juno, Burlingk, and others. = paul2520 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Mt.FijiBoiz, Juno, Burlingk, and others. ThisAside from my annoyance at the "(do not) support") syntax (I'm ignoring those), is a significant event in the protests that have played out, and the existance of a new society in an area of an existing nation is notable. 78.146.133.213 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Mt.FijiBoiz, Juno, Burlingk, and others. Meteorswarm (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per many others now. Even if it doesn't last very long, the Paris Commune only lasted 10 days, and it would be absurd to delete that (not that the two events are the same scale, the point just being that this article is very relevant to other articles on related events, regardless of how "successful" it is). -Tga (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Paris Commune lasted 71 days, not 10. Mar 18 to May 28. Kaltrops (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge with a lean on keep. The article has enough sources and it looks like the zone is developing into its own beast - but on the basis of WP:TOOSOON it's probably not much for its own article yet, ergo my !vote. Proposed target would, of course, be Capitol Hill (Seattle). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for all the reasons stated by Mt.FijiBoiz above. The formation of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, regardless of how long the zone itself lasts or what form it subsequently takes, is a very significant event in the history of political activism in the United States. It deserves to be documented as a living article on Wikipedia. Originalgandalf (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Originalgandalf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Adequately sourced to establish notability. It could conceivably be merged at a later date, and a reasonable merge target has been proposed, but that's more a topic for later discussion. WP:NOTNEWS is rather beside the point here: the article is not written in newspaper style and does not claim to provide original reporting. We do, indeed, write about current events. We just do so encyclopedically. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well cited, accurate, notable enough to be kept up, should not be merged. (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a notable event, with coverage from WP:RS, in an extremely important moment in history. It's a current event, sure, but it isn't WP:TOOSOON. Coverage in RS negates that. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was coverage about the legitimacy of this zone on several Seattle morning news TV broadcasts, including:
  1. KIRO 7 News (Broadcast) (Television). Seattle, WA, USA: Cox Media Group. 2020-06-10. Event occurs at 06:00. FCC
  2. KOMO 4 News (Broadcast) (Television). Seattle, WA, USA: Sinclair Broadcast Group. 2020-06-10. Event occurs at 06:00. FCC
  3. Q13 News This Morning (Broadcast) (Television). Seattle, WA, USA: KCPQ Fox Television. 2020-06-10. Event occurs at 08:00. FCC
  4. KING 5 Morning News (Broadcast) (Television). Seattle, WA, USA: King-tv. 2020-06-10. Event occurs at 06:00. FCC 🤘֍Ȼ╠╣Ḻ֎🤘 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has gained enough significance for it to maintain a place on Wikipedia, and has received coverage in both local and national news. The placement of a current event warning is appropriate, but the page should stay. User:Audrey1125 17:51, 10 June 2020
  • Neutral. "Too soon" doesn't seem like a compelling reason to delete the article in my view, but that in itself doesn't seem like a reason to keep it. If, say, the National Guard clears this out tomorrow without much bloodshed, then it probably won't be notable at all. If it stays up for weeks, and/or there's a big fight, that might be notable. At the moment, I don't think it quite is yet. Perhaps it's best to keep it, merge with it with the all articles at a later time if needed. -Xbony2 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete/Merge. Upon further inspection, it doesn't really look like much of anything. Someone just put a sign up. There are BLM protests, people giving out free food, some clean up, but nothing very different from anything elsewhere. No structure or intentions. Businesses are operating as usual, the mail still comes in, not really autonomous in any sense. Just a neighborhood with protests and people hanging out. Less police than usual but there are still police going in to deal with local issues. The barricades (now removed) were mainly to stop a vehicle ramming attack, people get in and out just fine. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is false. Free Capitol Hill Statement There are organized supplies, cleanup, patrolling, public film screenings, concerts. (The Stranger). Not "someone put up a sign." That's simply incorrect. - Keith D. Tyler 06:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The CHAZ is significant in its own right and the pace at which developments are trending within the CHAZ shows this it will have staying power. Deleting it now would be de facto censorship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6E0:DAA:4C97:B743:6685:167B (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets WP:GNG already. WP:TOOSOON doesn't apply to things that have already received significant coverage, otherwise it would be impossible to create an article on any event until well after the fact. Probably should be SNOW kept at this point given the overwhelming consensus. Smartyllama (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes the GNG. Additionally, I see two concerns raised on the Delete side: TOOSOON and NOTNEWS. TOOSOON doesn't apply at all here: it's an essay that only addresses people and films; the only possibly relevant bit would be "Sometimes, a topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that. In such cases, it may simply be too soon to create the article." But clearly, if it passes the GNG, that's not the case. NOTNEWS is more relevant, but there's no clear guidance on what constitutes news, only referring to "enduring notability" and explicitly stating that routine coverage does not count. This is clearly not routine coverage. Whether the CHAZ has "enduring notability" is necessarily speculative and subjective, and we can see here that reasonable people disagree, so I don't think that's a strong enough reason to delete. (Depending on how things progress, that could be a reason to come back and request deletion at a later date.) The GNG ensures that topics have sufficient coverage to write a sound article, and we already have that. -- irn (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At what point does the truthfulness of the declaration come into it? From all accounts, the Seattle Fire Department is still there, the Public Utilities is picking up trash daily, the SPD themselves are still responding to 911 calls in the area, and the city provided port-o-potties to the protesters and are maintaining them. They may claim to be autonomous, but at this point it doesn't seem to actually be that, the city of Seattle is still treating the area as part of the city and the protesters are still allowing them to treat it as such. I'm not sure at what point calling something autonomous but it isn't actually autonomous becomes a hoax. (The barricades have also been removed from the streets apparently) Jeancey (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We call it what it's called in reliable sources. We can't and don't pass our own judgments as to whether those sources are accurate. As another user told you above, if you have reliable sources calling this an elaborate hoax, add them to the article. Even if this were a really elaborate hoax, which it's not, that's not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for an article that mentions that. Smartyllama (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hoax was perhaps the wrong choice of word from me, as it implies intentional misrepresentation. What I meant was more of a proclaimed zone but de facto part of the city, with no real control over the actual functioning of the area as a community. The sources do support that the city continues to provide services to the area and the protesters let them. The sources support the argument that the zone is less autonomous than the article makes them out to be. Jeancey (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing to add beyond previous speakers on this issue, who have put forward convincing administrative arguments. Jordfall (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works. Koopinator (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per all Keep arguments above, but consider merge (especially if this dies down in a few days).--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 18:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Enough coverage in the media, possibly historically notable moment for the nation concerned, easily meets WP:GNG as many have pointed out. The degree of autonomy achieved should not determine notability here. Bubka42 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all Keep arguments above. Tvc 15 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has numerous articles on famous squats & communes i.e. Hippydilly & St Agnes Place -- surely this is a similar idea of Anarchist principles in action? It has lasted for a few days and may well last more so it is surely a significant part of the movement.WeeMungo (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion – The TOOSOON policy indicates “If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon.” Our discussion into the quality of the article’s sources may be valid, but sources for the subject certainly do exist. No one is reasonably arguing these sources are all wholly unreliable either. Thus, this article does not qualify for TOOSOON and should be retained. Zkidwiki (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has a good amount of timely coverage and it's clear to me that a faction with a notable amount of support attempting to secede from the United States of America is itself notable. Faissaloo (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep. If western world survives the entire situation, it will be worthy to remember in order to not let the history repeat itself. Otherwise, article will be valid anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.104.52.124 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to draft space I contest the claim that this has received widespread coverage. A cursory google brings up coverage, but not by any sites that I would consider mainstream (CNN, New York Times, etc.) except maybe Fox News. If it gets more coverage in the next week or so then we can reinstate this article, but the fact that we don't know for sure yet whether this will be remembered in a year makes this a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Justin Kunimune (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - As much as I wish for these protests to succeed, and as much as I hope that this spreads, I do feel that this is WP:TOOSOON, since pretty much all sources covering it are not covered by independent secondary reliable sources. It would be easier to just merge this into the overall protest coverage, and if more of these pop up across the country, maybe we can have an article of these autonomous zones as a collective, as opposed to individual articles for each individual zone. 2604:3D09:E27E:A800:799C:519F:E8CC:2D9C (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article represents a historical event with few precidents in the United States. To delete it would be irrisponsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.87.33 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps someone could point to an actual WP policy that indicates the amount of time that an event has to last in order for it to be notable and not WP:TOOSOON (which, again, is not a policy) I don't believe there is one. - Keith D. Tyler 22:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article is treating it as a proper country, using the actual infobox for one. This is clearly not the case. It is not recognized by the government of the United States or any other legitimate nation. It is nothing more than an anarchist LARP that only started a couple days ago and is unlikely to last much longer. 86.178.138.34 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A reason for edit, by no means a reason for delete. WP:SOFIXIT. Keith D. Tyler 22:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that this article is treating CHAZ as a proper country. It is not a proper country. datagod (talk) 🍁 22:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like an argument that the article content should be revised, but I don't know how this is a rationale supporting deleting what content is here. --causa sui (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable: this article is giving far too much credibility to a place with no government, where even the porta-potties are supplied by the actual City — I am essentially in agreement with the above IP on this.
Easier to argue, the sources are really not reliable to cover this in an objective, accurate way and/or prove notability; almost all of them are somewhat to extremely biased (The Stranger, Fox News, Industrial Worker, Democracy Now!, It's Going Down etc.), sensationalized (The Daily Dot, Heavy.com, New York Post etc.), very very local (Capitol Hill Seattle Blog), or some combination of the three. DemonDays64 (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many arguments, such as datagod's, are simply rephrasings of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are more than enough reliable, secondary sources about this event. We are only supposed to consider notability, not article quality or other matters. DemonDays64, your contention does not jive with the community consensus about those sources at WP:RSP. Furthermore, reliable sources can be WP:BIASED, and that by itself does not destroy notability. You ought to raise issues at WP:RSN if you want a source deprecated, AfD is not the proper venue. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 22:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Psiĥedelisto: The source thing is a valid concern about notability; to cover a few city blocks as a country needs good sourcing, or we're really making stuff up. Those sources are certainly prone to potential undue weight — one very clear example is that a somewhat large part of the Heavy piece is circular reporting about the Wikipedia article. DemonDays64 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DemonDays64: I'm not defending all of the sources you deride; even before my !vote, I wrote on Twitter that Heavy.com is a trash source. However, Daily Dot, Industrial Worker, Fox News, New York Post, all of these are RS, some are biased RS, yes, but they're all RS. I'm not even arguing that we should call it a country in WP:WIKIVOICE, that's an article quality issue, not a reasoned AfD argument. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify/ weak keep Just as we do not allow an emerging musician to get his publicity on the back of Wikipedia, the zone should be given a chance to develop naturally before being immortalized in Wikipedia. With that said, I have zero doubt this will ultimately meet the standards of wikipedia. Whether it leads to a peaceful commune or violent expulsion, this is a zone with a story still to be written.(and don't think moving to draft is actually an option, so ultimately I am a keep. Slywriter (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a legitimate movement, no legitimate credible sources. No history in the making. Skarz (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWhile it is an ongoing event, there are multiple stories in the news showing it to be a singifcant movement. Even if it goes away soon, it will be a signifacnt event in history. MrGWillickers (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As most people said here, it is getting significant coverage to the point when I search "Seattle" on Google that links to articles about CHAZ are on the first page. Dwscomet (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To follow up on what Dwscomet wrote, I've added two nice local news sources to the article. One by KCPQ, the other by KIRO-TV. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - It's possible the article title may need adjusting (Defining this more as an event rather than a place), but the fact is similar incidents and occurrences have had articles within short time of them starting. (The Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016 started on 2 January, 2016. We had an article for it on 3 January, 2016 with only 5 references.) We can always merge this at a future date if it ultimately disappates and there's not much to write on it. I feel the assertion of 'TOOSOON' is incorrect--The Navigators (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a fictional entity being pushed by internet pranksters. While the construction paper signs and crayon-colored barricades are newsworthy, the focus of the article isn't any more real than a Rennaisance fair's make-believe towns and costumes. It's funny though, so keeping the article wouldn't be so bad for the entertainment of the public. Wikinium (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article quality complaint, and has nothing to do with notability. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Exact opposite - it's a well written article about something that literally does not exist. Tweets and physical signs pinned on street corners can't make a place officially exist, though. Wikinium (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikinium: According to you, what does not exist? The abandoned precinct? The armed guards and barracades? The mayor's statement that while some city services will continue, police will stay away for now? Please tell me specifically which hoax needs removing, and why the WP:RS's are wrong/unusable. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep. This is a minor event within a larger series of protests. Not notable on its own. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has now become notable, IMO. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Have come to this conclusion after reading through the previous commentary above. It seems as if this is kind of a splinter page off of the riots and protests. I haven't looked to see if there is a page dedicated to the Seattle area protests, but if there is, this page is better suited to be added there. Not really something that should be an encyclopedia stand-alone, I don't think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaska4Me2 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, i have added the micronations wikiproject to this article's talkpage and notified the project via the project talkpage as their editors may like to contribute to this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable for having significant coverage. Catiline52 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is significant coverage and, as mentioned above, deletion could be seen as endorsement of censorship. Naea | Hale o Keawe 01:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naea-a-liloa (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. - per previous arguments against deletion as can be read above. Deletion at this time looks something like censorship. Also wish to note that disliking a source or its past biases on certain, different, issues should by no means make its report on this particular issue/event invalid or notably biased (I refer mostly to some discounting of the RT article, done above, which seems to be among the most extensive covering CHAZ). As far as I can tell it's an accurate report which gives coverage to parties taking both opposing and supporting stances... as are many from that outlet (slants in geopolitical reporting are by no means exclusive to non mainstream outlets... This has been seen repeatedly as well from, for example, CNN... only in the opposite direction according to taking differing geopolitical stances). Don't have to like an outlet to acknowledge it's reporting on one topic as legitimate or accurate coverage, as I would say is the case with the previously provided article. RT has a reach in the millions and is a global outlet, which makes its coverage of CHAZ significant (in my opinion) regardless of its reputation re. geopolitical biases. With that aside concluded, I would recommend keeping this article unless CHAZ fizzles out or is disbanded within the next day or two without violence (something I don't foresee happening in that timeframe). If something of that nature occurs then I'd recommend merging it as others have suggested above. Otherwise I think it's notable enough, and sufficiently reported on, to warrant the article. Whether the article needs a rework is a different matter... Chancellor1 (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is a noteworthy event, but as it stands, it probably does not merit its own article. I propose the creation of a separate article on Seattle's response to the George Floyd protests. This feels like it would fit in well with Mayor Jenny Durkan's controversial tweets, the takeover of city hall by BLM activists, etc. But as it stands, this probably doesn't merit its own article unless things get more heated. So, I vote in favor of merging this information with another article focused on post-Floyd protest movements in Seattle. JakeDapper (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event has generated enough world wide press coverage to be considered a notable event. Events with less press coverage and less sources, such as the Trump Free Speech Rally, or the many Occupy <City> articles which are listed in Occupy movement in the United_States, have been accepted by the community. In keeping with precedent, this article is notable and should be kept. If in retrospect, it is determined this is more appropriate as a sub-section, it should be merged after discussion.Gsonnenf (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • New source: City Journal. This foggy crystal ball will be quite clear by the time this AfD ends in six days. And this comment and all those before it will go quickly obsolete. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not merge. Regardless of legal recognition, the area is notable, organized, and multi-faceted. It is not a singular event (like the sit-in at City Hall) but comparable to Occupy Seattle or Standing Rock, which both have articles. Merging would be reductive, providing less information on a subject for which many people are seeking impartial information. Turtleey (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't merge. Sufficient sourcing for a standalone article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep several significant regional and national news sources cover it (with one even mentioning this specific article). Like it or not, it's gotten its place at least in the footnotes of the protests' coverage. Juxlos (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Right now it's WP:NEWS tier. We have no idea if this is just some 1 or 2 day non event with no lasting impact or this will go anywhere. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support The topic has a growing amount of reliable 3rd party sources. Too soon or not, it is notable now, and I think we would be well served to give the article a chance to mature. TechBear | Talk | Contributions —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, June 10, 2020
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV. The level of coverage transcends WP:NOTNEWS schetm (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable commune covered by multiple [[WP::RS]]s. 84percent (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it looks like this will be notable even if it gets removed. --Blemby (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- am I crazy, or are half the people here posting in this thread new users who seem to have just been sent here to canvass the page? Seems really fishy. I hope whomever is the AfD closer considers that. It looks like there's lots of meatpuppets and sockpuppets, especially when you consider that many users apparently don't know to sign their comments. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 04:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is becoming notable since Trump is talking about it --Caveman Caveman Caveman —Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absolutely notable and widely discussed. People come to Wikipedia for information. Why do we want to deny them that? (No need to give me your favorite "per WP:XXXX" reason. I've read them. I just don't see the point in deleting well-sourced, well-written articles about relevant topics. There's no net gain in doing that.) Also now the subject of a Trump tweet, which (I'm saying this as neutrally as I know how) does tend to create notability. Moncrief (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. notable, widely discussed, and heavily reported on. NoahRiffe (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable occurance, News coverage is fleeting AND incidental. WP:NOTNEWS] is a good policy to follow in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serafart (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me, or is it about to WP:SNOW?
  • Comment New source: The New York Times. [1] Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 05:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's already widely covered and the article is sourced well. No point of deleting it honestly. ShadZ01 (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable in anarchist history. --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because an article has flaws doesn't mean it should be deleted. Just because a deprecated source reported this doesn't invalidate the fact that many acceptable sources have covered it as well. Wikipedia is not censored. Leotext (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I do think this article is WP:TOOSOON, I do think it's too early to delete the article as well. It's currently notable and even POTUS has made comments on it. Occupations like this where law enforcement declines to intervene can last quite some time, such as IOAT's occupation of Alcatraz or the second Bundy standoff, with the latter even having its article created in the infancy of the standoff. This article is currently extended protected and in the coming days I reckon a lot of folks will be reading it. It could be a good resource. --ElKabong888 (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation: It is looking like a snow keep here, in the sense of avalanche rather than snowball. – Athaenara ✉ 05:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am starting to feel the same way. The original arguments for delete are mostly now invalid. Increasingly flat-out false and otherwise invalid arguments for delete are appearing. It doesn't meet the letter of WP:SPEEDYKEEP, but it's awfully close to the spirit of it. Keith D. Tyler 06:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Athaenara and KeithTyler: Myself, and the other editors who worked on this article, would certainly appreciate a removal of the "big scary warning". There is no reason this needs to run for seven days. I encourage you to WP:IAR if necessary and close this. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If I hadn't already !voted, I'd be perfectly willing to do an IAR SNOW close myself as a non-admin, but I'm not comfortable cutting through two layers of rules in an IAR close, and the rules, such as they are, say snow closes should only be done by uninvolved admins. Smartyllama (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. I actually came here searching for this very article, hoping to find sources that had reported on it. Deleting it, particularly in this time of immense interest, seems unwise to me. --Pacack (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article could use some work but that's not a reason to delete. It is a notable-on-its-own event within the current protests at the moment to warrant its own article, even if eventually it is short-lived. If it eventually dissolves without further events, only then it would warrant a potential merge in an appropriate location. To me this is in a gray area of WP:TOOSOON, but I'm inclined towards relevant enough. — LucasVB | Talk 06:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, it is already significant enough to have an entry. 2020 06 17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Mevrin (talk • contribs) 09:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep Come on, this is clearly notable. And the zone has received in depth coverage from numerous sources (a few examples: [2] [3] [4] [5]) so the nominator's rationale is no longer valid. I don't see any point in keeping this open for a whole week. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is going to be notable whatever happens. Liam Skoda (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ♫ Do you want to build a snowman? ♫ gobonobo + c 10:21, 11 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone&oldid=1197942791"