Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Longhornsg (talk | contribs) at 20:50, 24 April 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Hurghada attack.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Crime. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Crime|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Crime. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography.

See also: Social science-related deletions.

Crime

2017 Hurghada attack

2017 Hurghada attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is in the immediate days after the attack, no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED that establish WP:GNG. Open to an appropriate merge target. Longhornsg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt#Red Sea resort attacks (2016–17), where it is mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. Once again, the consensus leans towards keep with a note to nominator about the incomplete nomination, hence a procedural keep. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the September 11 attacks (H–N)

List of victims of the September 11 attacks (H–N) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL and is just a indiscriminate list of victims. EF5 15:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment EF5, any particular reason you're only nominating H-N and not the two other lists on the same subject? Departure– (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, I'm not sure how to do that. — EF5 16:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BUNDLE has instructions on exactly this. Though, I'm less than sure how it'll go now that a discussion has begun - perhaps withdraw for now and make your bundled nomination? Departure– (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, regardless of the specific 9/11 list being nominated, per last AfD discussion. Nothing much has changed. The list clearly passes NLIST. People always say NOTMEMORIAL when it doesn't apply, but that only applies when the topic itself isn't notable and people add it anyway. If the topic is notable, all NOTMEMORIAL says is:
  • Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements
The notability requirement for the list is satisfied, as shown extensively in the last AfD, so notmemorial becomes moot.
As for INDISCRIMINATE, that guideline says an article should not be summary only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, exhaustive logs of software updates, or unexplained statistics. The first three clearly do not apply, and I don't think the fourth one does because you could make a clear lead about a list of the 9/11 victims and what these people have in common is clearly explained. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this was made in response to the nominator's article of a similar kind getting AfD'd, and while I really do understand the frustration of what is seen as inconsistent enforcement, I do think there is a difference here in the quality of the sourcing per NLIST which is much more clearly evidenced here. The sourcing on 9/11 victims as a group is comparatively much much more significant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PARAKANYAA, indeed it was. I saw that going under and immediately this article came to mind. Please do keep in mind WP:FOC, though. — EF5 17:57, 23 April 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.
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Fallon, Nevada shooting

2018 Fallon, Nevada shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A mentally incompetent man shoots two people, killing one. Do we really need to record that here for eternity? Are we helping either of the BLPs involved in this by naming them here? Yes, it got some attention, news loves shootings and trials, but in the end this has no lasting impact, no new laws, no criminal gangs uncovered, no mastermind behind bars... Fram (talk) 08:53, 23 April 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.
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rancho San Pedro Locos

Rancho San Pedro Locos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable gang that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. This is my own article, but then I realized that there is a lack of SIGCOV, many of the articles of this gang are mere trivial mention or unreliable sources, including the 2011 gang injuction. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 28 April 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.
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. ✗plicit 14:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Case for Solomon

A Case for Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero content beyond existence of book itself, which is now mentioned in subject article Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar. U-Mos (talk) 09:36, 19 April 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.
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 delete‎. Sandstein 18:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Hadera stabbing

2024 Hadera stabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NEVENT, every source here is from the day it happened. Prod removed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 16 April 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.
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 01:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Xinmin

Zhao Xinmin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable whether there was any WP:SUSTAINED notability here to merit any article. Amigao (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After checking a few references they do not seem to verify the contents properly (and are AI generated), the 2002 award is not mentioned by the source. Neither is the HIV thing, in fact the source mentions an entirely different motive (money) which are the first two I checked... it is better to delete it and start over.
Probably notable though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look the worse this gets. The broad strokes are here but almost all the fine details in this article seem to have been hallucinated by AI. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The 2002 award is mentioned by name in the source's headline (" 《感动中国》2002年度人物：赵新民 " - "2002 'Touching China' figure: Zhao Xinmin"), and the beginning of the first paragraph ("颁奖") makes it clear the topic is an award. I agree there seems to be no mention of HIV in the source cited for that claim, but HIV is mentioned in this source cited later in the same paragraph. However, the URLs with ?utm_source=chatgpt.com are a red flag for sure. The subject seems to be notable, but I can see an argument for WP:TNT on the basis that the article appears to be LLM-generated. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:49, 21 April 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.
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 no consensus‎. Editors disagree on whether the sources meet NORG or not. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 09:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information Security Forum

AfDs for this article:
Information Security Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of significant coverage. While the article technically 'survived' AfD previously, that was only due to User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs and not because of the perceived notability of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I've added sourcing from Infosecurity Magazine, Security Magazine, and a 2013 UK government report, all WP:RS. The UK report identifies the ISF’s Standard of Good Practice for Information Security as “widely used” and “covering the complete spectrum of information security arrangements.” Together these 3 sources provide independent coverage that satisfies WP:ORG. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes No WP:TRIVIALMENTION ✘ No
No The author is a consultant for ISF Yes Yes ✘ No
No This book is published by the organization ~ ~ ✘ No
A WP:TRADES publication; independence for these sources is questionable Yes Yes ? Unknown
Yes Yes No Trivial mentions in tables on information security frameworks ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
No Reprint of a press release from the subject (see here) ~ ~ ✘ No
No ISF's own website ~ ~ ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I started looking into ISF, I hadn’t expected it to hold up quite so well internationally, but it appears to stand alongside some of the most widely recognized frameworks. I understand why the UK government report might have looked like a passing mention at first glance, but on closer review, it is more substantial. The 2013 BIS report compares 9 major cybersecurity standards including ISO/IEC 27001, PCI DSS, and Germany’s BSI and gives ISF 2 full pages of favourable and independent analysis (pp. 95–96), with strong marks in the comparison matrix on p. 20. Combined with the Carnegie Mellon SEI source, which is already accepted as a reliable reference, I believe this is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Infosecurity Magazine and Security Magazine provide some lighter additional support. I’ve also trimmed promotional content that was a very valid concern earlier. HerBauhaus (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears as a mention in a single line each in data matrix tables on pages 20, 51, 65 and 83. Those are definitionally trivial. It gets a full-page mention on page 95, but the material on that page is entirely quotes from ISF publications and thus not independent WP:SIGCOV. Finally, GNG is not the applicable guideline. WP:NORG is. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss Dclemens1971's comprehensive source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I appreciate the structured source assessment, but I interpret the 2013 BIS report differently. It includes a benchmarking study conducted by PwC for the UK government, comparing the ISF’s Standard of Good Practice to eight other major cybersecurity frameworks. These include ISO/IEC 27001 (international), PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry, US), Germany’s BSI IT-Grundschutz, and the Australian Government Information Security Manual. According to the matrix on page 20, the ISF framework received the highest scores across five security criteria. Pages 95 – 96 explain the rationale for these results in detail, based on a PwC-led gap analysis. This level of coverage is well beyond a trivial mention and qualifies as independent benchmarking.
A 2006 report from Carnegie Mellon’s Software Engineering Institute also provides an overview of ISF’s structure and security practices, adding further independent coverage. Infosecurity Magazine, a long-standing publication in the cybersecurity sector, discusses ISF’s alignment with the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. These sources together offer substantial, independent, and reliable coverage that meets both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. HerBauhaus (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:54, 29 April 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.
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 no consensus‎. Editors are encouraged to create an article on the scandal itself and redirect this there, however. asilvering (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lan Fu

Lan Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Negative undersourced BLP. Most of the article text is a WP:COATRACK for negative undersourced BLP material about someone else. I prodded this but my prod was removed by User:A. B. who provided as evidence for notability a newspaper article stating in vague terms legal charges against the subject and another newspaper article with a very brief mention that he was sentenced, neither used as footnotes for anything. I don't think these provide WP:SIGCOV. His position as deputy mayor does not pass WP:NPOL and the conviction does not have the evidence of lasting interest needed for WP:PERP. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In response to David’s comments:
  • I added 3, not 2, refs including a NY Times front page article
  • News and newspaper searches turned up more out there.
  • The South China Morning Post article is exclusively about Lan Fu’s troubles
  • When searching for refs, add Xiamen mayor to filter out other people with that name.
  • This was my edit summary when removing the PROD: ” remove PROD. Notable but the tagged concern remains: this may be more about the _alleged_ kidnapping of his son, Lan Meng, by Chinese authorities in Australia as a hostage for Lan Fu's return. We don't have a Lan Meng article”
  • This article is likely not a BLP since all the refs said LAN Fu was sentenced to death 2 decades ago as I noted in another edit summary. (There’s no lingering on Chinese death rows).
  • WP:NPOL: Xiamen has over 5 million inhabitants; it’s larger than every North American city except NY and larger than any city in the EU.
  • Re not adding footnotes to go with the refs: I’d already spent 60+ minutes doing the WP:BEFORE and I was late for lunch
    • I tagged the article with an inline template and moved on.
I encourage others to look at the existing refs and what else is out there. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's best to cover this as a biography article, but the scandal itself and his involvement is covered in several books [3] [4] [5] for just a few, there are many more. He was a very major player in this scandal and he was a public figure that was convicted so at the very least his name should redirect somewhere. Xiamen is a city of 5 million so there's also probably coverage of him as a mayor in Chinese. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Keep. The article has his name in traditional characters, not simplified. This is hardly noticeable to humans but impacts whether you find anything via ctrl+F searching. The simplified version is 蓝甫. I am looking for solid sources, but my gut feeling is that this guy is likely notable as deputy mayor of Xiamen and for being involved in a corruption scandal that garnered national interest. Here is a 2023 piece describing the scandal in great detail [8] – I'm not sure how reliable the source is though.
One could argue that the subject was only one person involved in a scandal (the "Yunhua smuggling case") that got hundreds of people arrested and sentenced, but he is named by sources as having received one of the harshest sentences of all defendants [9], so presumably he played an outsized role in the scandal. This would also be the counterargument to BLP1E. Toadspike [Talk] 13:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a lot of sourcing on this guy, probably because the corruption case was in the very early days of the Chinese internet, but this [10] might constitute sigcov. He is also mentioned twice in this [11] scholarly review of the case – again, showing that his role was more significant than that of the hundreds of other defendants. Toadspike [Talk] 13:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:45, 26 April 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.
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. There has been minimal input, but some editors have specified the article can be improved instead of deleted, and indeed have done that during the discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Neha Hiremath

Murder of Neha Hiremath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NEVENT, not enough sustained or in depth coverage to prove notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 16 April 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.
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 redirect‎ to Garda Síochána with the option of merging well-sourced content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile Liaison Officer

Juvenile Liaison Officer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little sources avaliable, no notability. Article is unencyclopedic as well. This article was created in 2006 by a brand new editor with little changes since. GoldRomean (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. While the role of Juvenile Liaison Officer within An Garda Síochána is a component of Ireland's juvenile justice system, the article primarily relies on primary sources and lacks in-depth analysis or discussion in secondary literature. AndesExplorer (talk) 17:32, 22 April 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.
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 delete‎. Much of this AfD revolved around the question of whether news is primary or secondary source. True, WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an explanatory essay, but it is broadly accepted as our best practice. Even if there were a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among participants in this AfD to deprecate WP:PRIMARYNEWS - which there isn't - it would not supercede the general consensus. Furthermore, even ignoring WP:PRIMARYNEWS, WP:SECONDARY tells us the same, especially when combined with Note d and the accompanying definitions from Duke University Libraries. With the policy question out of the way, it is easier to assess consensus here. I see a rough consensus to delete the article. I see no proposal for an ATD, but any EC editor is welcome to recreate the page as a redirect to a suitable target. Owen× ☎ 20:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien hello, im not familiar with the English Wikipedia article deletion policy, so i would be happy if you would be able to explain to me why 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, and 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing considered notable enough for an article, and this article isn't. There an important detail that i didn't mention in the article cause i didn't found source in English for this particular claim but there a lot of Hebrew sources. This detail is the fact that the settlement of Evyatar was re-establish be Israeli settlers as "response" for this attack.Benbaruch (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone would have to look at those articles, but it's possible they aren't notable either. Articles about events on the English Wikipedia require sustained coverage beyond the initial reporting of the event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thebiguglyalien, i understand, but what do think about the fact that a large output that currently being regulated by the Israeli government, was re-establish as "response" for this attack, don't you think that this fact makes the article about the attack notable enough? Benbaruch (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Keep There was the attack. Following that there was a manhunt which got coverage including his wife being arrested. He had a trial which got additional coverage. Then Israel military demolished his family home, which got coverage including the US State Department condemning it (a rare event).
The article needs work and additional sources, but I do think this incident and it's aftermath got sustained notice both within Israel but also around the globe. Searching using the name of the perpetrator is a good place to start for additional sources[12] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under scholarly sources, I found one book which doesn't just have a description of the attack but also discuss clashes and violence in response to Israel engaging in the manhunt[13] Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm updating my vote to Strong Keep after reviewing the number of sources which covered this attack and it's aftermath.
And while WP:OTHER isn't usually the strongest argument, in this case if we start applying a not-policy definition of secondary source which some here are trying to use to justify the deletion of even articles where hundreds of news articles were written about an event over a period of years, then much of this site would have to be deleted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd consider merge or redirect to an appropriate page, which is the level of treatment that this gets in the book above. To meet GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. The newspaper coverage is primary, as is the state department rebuke. The book, Jewish Lives Matter has only a short entry that does not significantly describe the attack such that a wikipedia page can be written. The nature of the work shows why multiple sources are required. We are certainly not at a WP:N pass yet, and if we are to rely on this kind of sourcing to keep an article then systematic bias in our coverage is likely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    > The newspaper coverage is primary...
    I'm not sure this understanding of secondary sources is correct.  Reading through it again, a newspaper journalist synthesizing facts regarding an incident seems sufficient to qualify as secondary:
    "A Secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"
    Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
    In which case, this incident got plenty of secondary source coverage over an extended period of time.
    -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is meta. Which sources do you contest are secondary, and why? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, based on policy it seems that all that's required to be a secondary source is for someone at least one step removed from the event synthesizing facts about it. And for this story, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples over a period of years. Here are just a few of them:
In this Haaretz article about the conviction the journalist synthesized a bunch of related facts regarding this case.
https://archive.is/CzIV8
Here's an article which focuses on the demolition of his family's home, but also meets the metric of synthesizing facts:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/08/us-israel-palestinians-violence
Here's another one which condemns Rashida Tlaib for tweeting about the house demolition.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/07/11/antisemitic-congresswoman-rashida-tlaib-slammed-on-twitter-for-denouncing-demolition-of-palestinian-terrorists-home-failing-to-mention-his-victim/
The US embassy issuing a condemnation is a primary source. Tlaib tweeting about it is a primary source. But if any journalist writes about these things then that's a secondary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let's look at each of these:
  1. The Haaretz article is a news report about sentencing of Muntasir Shalabi. This is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS or any good book on historiography. It is a discursive primary source, and it reports the background, that is, the shooting, saying Shalabi, a U.S. citizen, was convicted of shooting the three victims from inside his car while they were waiting at a bus stop at the Tapuah junction in the northern West Bank. and later According to his indictment Shalabi fired from close range and stopped shooting when his gun malfunctioned and fled the scene. That's not SIGCOV, but notice carefully that "According to his indictment". The news source is reporting court documents. This is a primary source for this detail also. News reporting is a primary source, and does not count towards notability, and that is Wikipedia policy. Red XN
  2. The Euronews article is a news report of the demolition of his house. Again, this is reporting events, and adds reported detail of the background of the events. This is a primary source. Again, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Red XN
  3. The algemeiner: This is a news report of criticism of the demolition of Shalabi's home. It contains only this background on the topic of the article: Of course what Hamas lobbyist @RashidaTlaib omits to mention is fact that this home belonged to a Palestinian terrorist who murdered a Jewish Israeli man. That is not SIGCOV, and is a quotation in response to the criticism. It, too, is primary sourcing. Note that what we don't have is a source that has synthesised material here. We don't have an article that has examined the whole matter, and draw together reporting, and chosen to include this criticism, and examined its effects. Instead we have a news report that we have decided to include in the article. The synthesis is ours. Again, this is a discursive primary source, and does not count towards notability. Red XN
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're looking at Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS as the best or only place to determine what a secondary source. Above you rejected my argument as "meta", but have you looked at Wikipedia:SECONDARY which defines what a secondary source is.
It only requires a few things:
  • At least one step removed from an event
  • Contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas
And here's my understanding of the word "synthesis" in this context:
  • Combining information from multiple sources to create a new, cohesive understanding or argument
Do you have a different understanding of the word?
And is there any disagreement with the idea that the Haaretz journalist probably talked to multiple people and maybe reviewed multiple documents to put together their news report? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PRIMARYNEWS links you to the policy page. Now look on WP:SECONDARY, scroll up a couple of paragraphs, and read note d under WP:PRIMARY. These are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restricting participation to EC editors per WP:PIA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I noticed another editor saying that wikipedia is not news, and though that is true, that is not what this is about. A review of the sources in both English as well as Hebrew demonstrates clear notability per WP:GNG for this article to be kept. The article also references an event from 2021. This was and is a notable event that meets our standards for encyclopedic mention. Keep all around. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Bob Drobbs comments and further inquiry, my Strong Keep moves to Even stronger Keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi lijhgtn. You may only have one highlighted !vote per AfD. I am curious though: your !vote above was made at 15:26 yesterday, but you had !voted on a previous AfD just 2 minutes earlier, at 15:24. Did you do your WP:BEFORE review of the sourcing at some other time? Would you be willing to post up your source review? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I bolded text after the first and only !vote. Will it somehow count as a second one? If so, that was not my intention, I was simply bolding the second mention of "Strong Keep" and "Even Stronger Keep" for emphasis. I thought only your first bolded !vote was "counted" (and yes I know they are not simply votes and therefore it is not simply a matter of which "side" has the highest number of !votes on their side but rather which arguments are most based in policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, if I did something wrong, please ping me and let me know so that I come back to this thread and I will correct it. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for removing the additional bolding. It keeps things clearer for the closer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This did not receive any – let alone significant! – secondary source coverage over time and warrants deletion for that reason. (WP:NOTNEWS / WP:SIGCOV) Already covered in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2021, besides. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comments above. Can you please clarify what your understanding of a secondary source is?
    Because it appears that between coverage of this shooting and coverage of the perpetrator/aftermath dozens if not hundreds of secondary sources gave significant coverage to this story. And to clarify my use of the word "significant" these weren't just passing mentions, these were are all news articles written specifically about the incident or things directly related to it's aftermath (manhunt, trial, home demolition) which IMO should be included in the scope of this article.
    As just one example, of countless examples, here is a secondary source giving coverage of the attack:
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/student-shot-in-west-bank-drive-by-shooting-dies-of-injuries/ Bob drobbs (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Times of Israel article is a news report of the death of Yehuda Guetta. The article is news reporting throughout. As above, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Such reports are primary sources occasioned by the event (this one is occasioned by the death of the victim). These are not secondary sources demonstrating notability nor WP:LASTING effect. Red XN Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      IMO Wikipedia:Secondary source seems like a better, and probably the definitive place, to try to get an understanding of what a secondary source is. Bob drobbs (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, scroll up a couple of paragraphs on that page and carefully read note d regarding what are primary sources. Per policy, these are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I did scroll up. it seems 100% clear that Times of Israel (and countless other sources) aren't a primary sources based on this definition:
      "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event..."
      But there's also this qualification:
      "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources..."
      I wasn't sure, so I had to look up how wikipedia defines "breaking news":
      "Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news
      So it seems very clear that the only standard here is to treat news stories within 24 hours of an event with a large degree of skepticism, not that every single news article written within 6-12 months of an event is a primary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is just wikilawyering. Have another read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You keep referring to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, but that page is just an opinion essay written by some editors:
      "This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community'"'
      By comparison, WP:SECONDARY is policy. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is an explanatory essay explaining Wikipedia policy, and which, like all explanatory essays, has a higher level of consensus than someone trying to assert that a news source is only primary if it is within 24 hours of an event. It also links quite clearly to the policy. News reports are primary sources. It is not just Wikipedia saying so.

      Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.[1]: 69 .

      Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      At any rate, WP:SECONDARY is very clear: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The ToI article provided does none of these things. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      News reports are primary sources
      Yes, some very academic-focused essays make this claim, but this is not wiki policy.
      There's literally a WP:In the news section featured at the top of the homepage which is written based on news reports. Bob drobbs (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Why does Wikipedia need to define what a secondary/primary source are? This is a real term and not something made up for the purpose of the project like WP:NOTABILITY. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is wikipedia policy. See WP:PRIMARY and especially note d. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary coverage, and yes news reports are primary sources: [14] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, isn't that when a "No consensus" close is appropriate? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was started on March 27. Is it standard practice to just relist into eternity until a super majority is presented? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
up to 3 relists are quite common where consensus remains unclear. Note that Liz said this is the final relist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is 3 the maximum? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:02, 24 April 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.


Crime Proposed deletions

Deletion Review

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Crime&oldid=1287226941"