Deletion of Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

Comment: Adequately sourced to establish notability. It could conceivably be merged at a later date, and  Capitol Hill (Seattle)|a reasonable merge target has been proposed, but that's more a topic for later discussion.  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Clear case of  and . Barely manages to scrape thru 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG)

Comment: Easily meets  already.  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: If this was a widely reported weather event we wouldn't be arguing about this: It'd stay with a "current events" banner.  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 . And if the autonomous zone disappears,  - 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:IBA||WP:NOTTEMP)

Comment: Enough coverage in the media, possibly historically notable moment for the nation concerned, easily meets  as many have pointed out. The degree of autonomy achieved should not determine notability here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as . Mentions in  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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RS||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: While I do think this article is , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: as the establishment of the autonomous zone is a notable event with sufficient secondary reliable source coverage, not in violation of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: non notable occurance, News coverage is fleeting AND incidental.  is a good policy to follow in this case. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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  it's probably not much for its own article yet, ergo my !vote.  Proposed target would, of course, be Capitol Hill (Seattle
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: The commune's article is notable and should stay. An article about a newly-founded "autonomous region of the US", which has multiple credible sources, should stay up despite how "soon" the article was written (the page doesn't even violate ). Sources, deemed as credible by Wikipedia, cited on the page talking about the notability of C.H.A.Z. include: ''The Seattle Times'', The Daily Dot, and KIRO-FM local news (and at least two other Seattle-based local news websites
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: per . The level of coverage transcends 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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 , 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. Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:E27E:A800:799C:519F:E8CC:2D9C|2604:3D09:E27E:A800:799C:519F:E8CC:2D9C
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:RS)

Comment: 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 , but I'm inclined towards relevant enough. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Agreeing with the comments above that this topic infringes on  and . It should also be noted that - given this topic is so new - there is no evidence of  coverage of the topic. As far as the  argument is concerned, topics that meet GNG are ''presumed'' to be notable, an issue in this case given that next to none of the  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:SUSTAINED||WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: this is a notable event, with coverage from , in an extremely important moment in history. It's a current event, sure, but it isn't . Coverage in RS negates that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:TOOSOON)