Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

Crime

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. Various sources are present denoting notability, which can be incorporated into the article. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vaiben Solomon

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

This article clearly fails wikipedia notability guidelines for people. They were apparently convicted of a crime and then became wealthy. Can't verify sources, lacks inline citation. Cautiously, I state that this article may have some themes of antisemitism, particularly the trope of "criminal jew becomes wealthy" or "jew sees the light and becomes good." AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the sources about him are difficult to track down, particularly given all the hits for his much more prominent nephew Vaiben Louis Solomon. But the 1975 journal article in the Australian Jewish Historical Society Journal definitely qualifies, and I can verify his entry in this biographical dictionary of Australian Jews. The article needs major clean-up, but those two sources are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I also just don't really see the concerns about antisemitic tropes here — a large proportion of early Australian Jewish figures were former convicts who achieved success after being transported to Australia, and I think that's just part and parcel of Jewish history in Australia. (minor COI disclaimer: I had never heard of this guy until I saw this AfD, but after reading the article it turns out he is a very distant ancestor of mine). MCE89 (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Judaism, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This article is a mess, but not TNT worthy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom Somajyoti ✉ 07:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason? Or any concerns about the sources linked above? Commenting on 4 AfDs with no rationale or a simple "per nom" in the span of just 2 minutes ([1] [2] [3] [4]) makes me somewhat concerned that your !vote here may not have been carefully considered. MCE89 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be notable. Newspaper accounts can be found on Trove if you limit the search to 1818 to 1870. While his brother seems more notable, he's got a People Australia entry. The State Library of South Australia have compiled information about the brothers. Also, the Jewish Museum, St Kilda have used the brothers as exhibition examples.ash (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've revised the page and added 9 new sources. ash (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources for the GNG. Historic figure so no BLP concern. gidonb (talk) 15:01, 27 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. The nominator's view, which they clearly feel very strongly is correct, is just as clearly a minority opinion. Consensus is in favour of keeping. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Chauvin

AfDs for this article:

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

I expect this will be controversial, but I do think my argument is valid. This article was AfDed twice before, shortly after it happened, the first of which was delete and the second of which was keep. Nearly five years later, I believe we can address the article on its merits, and whether it results in keep or delete this will hopefully have led to some improvement in the state of things, whether through deletion or improving it to where it clearly has a scope outside of other articles.

Chauvin fails WP:CRIMINAL and WP:NOPAGE. The crime is notable, but as a person he is not, and even if he is notable this article contains virtually no biographical information besides legal cases and all encyclopedic information is already covered on other articles.

Firstly: he fails WP:CRIMINAL, which specifies a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Of course, there are outlined exceptions, and of the guideline's two perpetrator criteria, he fails the first (the victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, e.g. politicians or celebrities (whether Floyd himself is notable is a different question that I will not weigh in on, but he was surely not notable prior to the crime happening so this does not apply) and also fails the second. The second prong is thus:

The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

The problematic part for Chauvin's case is while the murder is clearly notable, his role as a person is not significantly discussed in sources that are not extremely close to the event. Almost all are WP:ROUTINE legal notice and they do not persist[...] beyond contemporaneous news coverage, they are right after the event happened. They are all on the wider societal effects - but not Chauvin or how his life relates to the event. Unlike other killers who may warrant an article, where there was wide discussion about motive and the personal background of the killer, and how it relates to the event, there is none of that here. There is basically no discussion of Chauvin as a person at all outside of breaking news sources and legal notice which do not help for WP:CRIMINAL

Secondly, WP:NOPAGE: even when someone technically fulfills one of our notability guidelines, it is worth considering whether we are best serving the information to the reader this way. Killers who are much more notable, and who clearly pass WP:CRIMINAL, have had their articles deleted because it was better covered or had too much overlap with the main event article, even when it clearly harmed the main event article, or when the main article was extremely lengthy. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it gives us precedent to ask the question, would be beneficial to the reader if this information is presented another way? Yes, it would, for this case.

Almost all information in this article is basic legal proceedings, which overlap entirely with the Murder of George Floyd or the Trial of Derek Chauvin article. There are numerous citations to legal documents (which we are not supposed to use on a BLP ever), there is virtually no necessary information in this article that is not repeated in other articles, except that he was attacked in prison (not relevant to notability), and an enumerated and improperly formatted list of conduct complaints (sourced to breaking news).

What does the reader get from having this article, which is not a biography but a list of legal cases, which are already covered on other articles and covered better! If it is possible to write an article on Chauvin that does not duplicate other articles and clearly has a reason to exist besides it being for the sake of it, this is not it, and this article shows no evidence that it is capable of becoming that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Police. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chauvin has been reported on for a number of different crimes, with sources also devoting significant space to his earlier life and career. While Chauvin murdering Floyd no doubt initiated all of this, sourcing is, at this point, sufficient for a standalone article. Cortador (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not per WP:CRIMINAL, the relevant notability guideline. The content that isn't in other articles is unencyclopedic and irrelevant to any notability, and if kept shouldn't even be included in the article (with the exception of his early life, but that is sourced entirely to sparse mentions in articles from the month after the crime). The claim to notability is entirely based on the Floyd killing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He clearly meets the second prong you discussed for the significance of coverage around his role to this day and in a global context. It isn’t “just contemporaneous.” The reporting on Chauvin has investigated the whole context of his life and career and his role continues to be pivotal to this historic event and the discussions still occurring. This feels like saying Lee Harvey Oswald shouldn’t have an article as his notability is exclusively due to one very historic crime-the crime is of such significance that reliable sources have since investigated and discussed him and his past actions.~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 15:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that analogy doesn't exactly follow. The first prong of WP:CRIMINAL for perpetrators specifically makes an exception for the victim being a celebrity or politician. Oswald killed a politician. Nub098765 (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIMINAL: "2. [The crime] has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." We've certainly met that threshold. The trial of Derek Chauvin does not go into the same detail that this article does, in part because not all biographical elements of his life are admissible as evidence at trial. There are details about Chauvin that will never fit cleanly into other articles. Details that readers clearly seek, given page views of this article versus related ones The Savage Norwegian 16:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." The sourcing does not discuss Chauvin as a person extensively. He was there, he did it, that is all they really say. He is the perpetrator but the sourcing does not focus on him outside of legal notice. Someone like Lee Harvey Oswald has extensive coverage about their life outside of the legal case - Chauvin has almost none. This article is sourced almost exclusively to routine legal proceedings.
Page views are not notability. Whatever details this article has (he went to a certain school, tax fraud case) that the others don't are superfluous and aren't needed to understand the Floyd killing. We have WP:BLP1E for a reason. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The sourcing does not discuss Chauvin as a person extensively." Yes it does: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Levivich (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5 of those are from right after the murder happened or trial coverage, so they do not "persist beyond contemporaneous news coverage". The first one has him in the title but I checked it and it recaps the murder and analyzes the murder. It gives no information on him as a person. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "right after the murder" is not what I would call "right after the murder":
May 25, 2020: the murder happened

A few days later, May 29, 2020, WaPo's profile of Chauvin [11]. That is contemporaneous news coverage, right after the murder.

Seven months after the murder, Dec. 23, 2020: "Derek Chauvin: Racist Cop or Product of a Racist Police Academy?" published in the Journal of Black Studies. That is neither contemporaneous, nor news coverage. [12]

Nine months after the murder, Feb. 6, 2021, PBS's profile of Chauvin [13]

Ten months after the murder, Mar. 10, 2021, BBC's profile of Chauvin [14]

Eleven months after the murder, Apr. 20, 2021, CNN's profile of Chauvin [15]

A year and two months after the murder, Jun 25, 2021, NYT's profile of Chauvin [16].

It is not true that the first source--the Journal of Black Studies article--"gives no information on him as a person", e.g.: Chauvin was the product of a highly militarized police academy that molds recruits into human robots programmed to enforce laws that target predominantly African-Americans ... Chauvin’s record with the Minneapolis Police Department included 'at least 17 complaints' ... Though Officer Chauvin had several complaints filed against him, he 'received only two letters of reprimand' ... it is, perhaps, not too great a leap to attribute Chauvin’s homicidal act to being “educated away from . . . [Black] culture” (Asante, 1993, p. 170) as well as living away from it ... Had Chauvin had the benefit of an Afrocentric education and training or even greater exposure to the Black life and culture of the inner city, he may have been able to resist perceiving Floyd as a violent criminal and view with greater empathy a man begging for his life. It's perhaps more psychoanalysis than biography, it's not the most detailed RS about Chauvin, but it certainly gives information about Chauvin.

Take away the WaPo and the Journal of Black Studies articles, and you still have PBS, BBC, CNN, and NYT writing profiles of him months or over a year after the event. And that's just what I found in five minutes of googling his name. Levivich (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are during the trial, which contemporaneous to that event, they are recapping to remind the audience paying attention to the trial. Look at the headings - "What charges does Chauvin face?" "What has happened since Chauvin's arrest?" etc, yes that's WP:ROUTINE legal developments which will happen with the perpetrator of any murder case. The PBS is not, but is a personal interview with people who knew him which is WP:PRIMARY.

The journal source is, as evidenced by the text you excerpt, useless for developing a BLP, and it does not give information on him that would help developing an article. It's all hypotheticals or abstract he may have been, had Chauvin had the benefit. And two sentences about his police record. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should concede that your statement, "The sourcing does not discuss Chauvin as a person extensively," is not true. Levivich (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It discusses him but not "as a person" and not "extensively". PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you can look at the PBS, BBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo articles I linked above (here's another from the Star Tribune), and say they do not discuss him as a person extensively. I think you are misrepresenting those sources by making that claim. Levivich (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to news sources that were not contemporary to the event, both murder and trial. All of the ones you linked are (besides the journal source and the PBS one, which have other issues), and do not count for assessing this kind of interrelated notability. The Star Tribune source is local and shortly after the murder, but it actually discusses his biography outside of recapping the trial so is probably the best thing you have linked. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I agree that page views are entirely irrelevant. Take a step back for a moment. What is the point of notability? What is it for? From the lead of WP:Notability: Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". People are noticing this article. They're noticing it more than the Murder of George Floyd and Trial of Derek Chauvin combined. Absent other information, or assuming we can't agree by other notability metrics, I'd say page view stats are evidence the page is notable. Like it or not, he's notorious. The Savage Norwegian 20:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thesavagenorwegian Notorious is not Wikipedia notability which is passing the GNG or an SNG. We do not have articles on highly popular items for which the sources do not exist to fulfill our standards. WP:BFDI as an item gets billions of views - but is not even notable enough for one page. Page views provide no evidence about what sourcing exists. If Chauvin is notable, it is by a dubious interpretation of NCRIMINAL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only saying that absent agreement on the criteria itself, secondary factors can be considered. I'm not arguing that popular things deserve articles, I'm arguing that the burden of proof for deletion should be higher on popular articles. I'm not convinced Chauvin is flash-in-a-pan famous. You are. How else do we resolve this impasse? The Savage Norwegian 21:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why should more popular articles face a higher bar for deletion? If, hypothetically, we discovered that Donald Trump didn’t meet notability guidelines (an absurd premise, but bear with me), should it then be harder to delete his article just because myriad people visit it every day? That logic puts visibility over verifiability. You seem to be equating page views with personal interest, but most people who visit the Derek Chauvin article are likely doing so because of the killing of George Floyd, not because Chauvin himself is a subject of enduring biographical or analytical interest. To follow the same logic: if Trump weren’t notable, and people only visited his article to learn about, say, his second presidency, why would we keep the person article instead of merging it into the second presidency of Donald Trump? The popularity of a page doesn’t demonstrate independent notability, it just shows public attention to the event it's tied to. I don't think we should be forced to play argumentative limbo in order to delete a famous page. Nub098765 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my point entirely. If a number of editors (not all, mind you) found Donald Trump to not meet notability, I do think the popularity of the article should be taken into account. It would be a large hint that perhaps those deletion-favoring editors were missing something. If readers were going to Donald Trump more than first presidency of Donald Trump, second presidency of Donald Trump, first, and second impeachments of Donald Trump combined I would think yes, there does seem to be some need for a Donald Trump article. You call it argumentative limbo, I call it due diligence.

Now, I don't think that's where we are right now. I think there is a consensus for there being a Derek Chauvin article, vote count being 10:2 at the moment. If it were more tied, I would certainly encourage looking at factors like page views to see what readers are actually looking for. The Savage Norwegian 15:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, if someone was involved in as many events as Donald Trump is, it would be beneficial to have an article on Donald Trump. But my argument was his notability being largely tied to on event (the killing of George Floyd). Donald Trump, I would say, wouldn't deserve an article if he was specifically only tied to his second term as president, even if many people visited his page (because most of them would be from the popularity of his second term). Nub098765 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:CRIMINAL because the murder of George Floyd is a well-documented historic event, and because sustained coverage of the event in RS persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to Chauvin. WP:NOPAGE arguments don't convince me: the content about Chauvin that is not about his murder of Floyd, e.g. his history of excessive force, his experience in prison, etc., would be WP:UNDUE in articles about the murder of Floyd. Chauvin is a notable criminal. Having an article about Floyd, an article about Chauvin, and an article about Chauvin's murder of Floyd, is the best way to split up coverage of that topic. If we were to combine it, we'd have undue problems, and page size problems, given the vast amount of RS coverage of Floyd, Chauvin, and the murder. Levivich (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The prison content is not even due weight here. It is completely unrelated to his notability. The main article can easily address that he had several improper use of force complaints in a paragraph or so. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being stabbed in prison is a significant WP:ASPECT of his biography, and that's covered by WP:NPOV, not WP:N. Significant WP:ASPECTs are included in articles regardless of whether they are related to the subject's notability or not. Levivich (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly isn't. Do we have sources reflecting on the ramifications of him being stabbed in prison? no, it's mentioned exclusively by WP:BREAKING news. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an international source, written almost a year after the stabbing, about the ramifications of him being stabbed in prison (to wit: he was transferred to another prison): [17]. Levivich (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source is WP:ROUTINE, thing happens, it is reported - there is no reflection or analysis. It is still WP:PRIMARYNEWS. It is a very minor thing that happened to him. Using all the minor details people have slapped on this article as evidence it should be kept is absurd (WP:LIPSTICK). PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that being stabbed 22 times is "a very minor thing that happened to him". Levivich (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Routine coverage is fine for expanding the article. Not every single source has to establish notability for use in bios.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We agree it does not establish notability, then. It is just padding. Prison attacks happen, a prisoner getting attacked does not make him notable. It is undue currently. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Chauvin became notable through his murder. His history of misconduct against Blacks/NDNs is not covered in depth in either his trial page or the George Floyd murder page; this is not just a rehashing of "better" articles as claimed. George Floyd is nationally recognized, and WP:CRIMINAL allows for exceptions when victims are renowned. There isn't a requirement that a person be renowned prior to death. Others have already articulated that notability is met within cited sources and that profiles of Chauvin were not only in the immediate aftermath of the murder.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that "George Floyd is nationally recognized after the fact" seems counterintuitive to the whole goal of enforcing WP:CRIMINAL. By this logic, any high-profile crime that makes someone famous posthumously would automatically confer notability to the perpetrator. WP:CRIMINAL is designed to stop specifically this: excessive documentation of people who are only notable because they committed a crime at all. Nub098765 (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somajyoti ✉ 07:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons provided by others who voted the same. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per other users who have already clarified the most. One section of the policy might not be meeting here but several other policies including other sections of the mentioned policy are meeting it all. It simply goes as per the pov a voter might have for the subject or topics mentioned here. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that this page has now been nominated three times is concerning. All the pages on Wikipedia that need clean-up, that need work, and this is what you're arguing to delete? ash (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This argument slides dangerously close to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nub098765 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this makes my position clearer then:

Keep: Chauvin is clearly notable. Comment: The fact that this page has now been nominated three times is concerning. All the pages on Wikipedia that need clean-up, that need work, and this is what you're arguing to delete? ash (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last two were before he was convicted, and we shouldn't have had an article then no matter what per WP:NCRIMINAL. Do we need to lionize the guy by giving him an article when it has no content benefit? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Chauvin is simply someone who became famous because the person he killed became famous. Not accounting for the various arguments that can be made that it doesn't pass WP:CRIMINAL, the unique bits could very easily be consolidated and put on a related page. People argue about the semantics of rules and the technicalities of their wording when it is much easier for the reader if we summarize the info elsewhere. Nub098765 (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRIMINAL: the execution of the crime was unusual, noteworthy, and a well-documented historic event. Also Chauvin is famous for killing Floyd (not because Floyd became famous for having died). ash (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if we grant that the article meets WP:CRIMINAL (which I'm still shaky on), the burden of argument lies again not on whether we "can" have a page but whether we "should." If, as you say, Chauvin is "clearly notable," we should then address that most of the sources discuss not him individually but the murder or trial as a whole. While, yes, he should definitely be considered notable in that he should be noted on Wikipedia somewhere, I don't think he's quite notable enough to have his own separate page, considering the tremendous number of sources in this article that don't cover him. The information in the article could, again, be trimmed and placed in a related article. Nub098765 (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, he clearly meets WP:NCRIMINAL because the murder of George Floyd is well-documented, and a massively significant event in American politics. Derek's role has and will continue to have sustained coverage; he's one of the most famous examples of a prepetrator of police brutality. jolielover♥talk 16:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- They really don't focus much on his role, outside of the event, as evidenced by the fact that there is basically nothing encyclopedic here that isn't in other articles. NCRIMINAL says "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." No later source says much about Chauvin besides him being found guilty, or him being stabbed. Many people are stabbed in prison, not a notability claim. We can cover all of what he is notable for without having a biography on him. Being famous is not notability if it is in association with one event PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  NCRIMINAL says "devotes significant attention to the individual's role", not "devotes significant attention to the individual's role outside of the event". You're inserting that part as a requirement, but it's not. There is no doubt that RSes devote significant attention to his role in the crime. There is also no doubt that it has persisted beyond contemporaneous news coverage of the murder itself. You can argue that it is contemporaneous to the various legal proceedings, but in that case, since the legal proceedings are still ongoing as of today, it is just too soon to tell if coverage will persist beyond the legal proceedings.
  
  He doesn't even need to be NCRIMINAL notable because he is WP:GNG notable. A subject doesn't have to meet both; GNG is enough.
  
  WP:BLP1E says that one requirement -- and I gotta say I am so tired of making this point over and over in different deletion discussions when people bring up BLP1E -- is that The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.. There is no doubt that the murder of Floyd was significant and Chauvin's role in it was both substantial and well-documented. There is no point in bringing up BLP1E here, it doesn't apply to this.
  
  Even if he didn't meet any notability guideline whatsoever, there is still the WP:NOPAGE argument for keeping a separate article.
  
  Having an article about a person isn't "lionizing" them. We aren't lionizing Adolph Hitler, after all. Levivich (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Levivich I didn’t say it was outside of the event but it is certainly more than “was convicted of it” in terms of detail. Otherwise, what perpetrator of a notable crime DOESN’T pass? What would you say is an instance where someone fails? The overall event passes GNG and he is mentioned in concert with that as a subtopic. You can split any big GNG topic into infinite subdivisions in this way where they “technically” pass (like any criminal) but we obviously do not have an article on every perpetrator of a notable mass shooting.
  
  I reject the well documented aspect. We do not have enough material to write an article on Chauvin that is of a tolerable quality, hence my problem with it.
  
  People often do interpret having articles on these kinds of people as “lionizing” them. I think in most cases this is rather idiotic, we are not here to write great wrongs, provided there is a clear encyclopedic benefit to it, but in Chauvin’s case there is no encyclopedic benefit. We are having an article to have an article. I mentioned it because there was an insinuation that I nominated this for immoral reasons. And per NOPAGE we should not have an article, so I’m unsure why you’re bringing that up? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I didn’t say it was outside of the event ... I was responding to what you wrote: They really don't focus much on his role, outside of the event ... The point is, focusing on his role "outside of the event" is not the requirement. It's the opposite, WP:NCRIMINAL says "devotes significant attention to the individual's role" ... the word "role" means role in the event. You can't argue that there isn't coverage of Chauvin's role in the murder of George Floyd -- that would be misrepresenting the sources. And you can't argue that the RS doesn't cover Chauvin outside of the event, because that's not a requirement of any notability guideline.
  
  ...what perpetrator of a notable crime DOESN’T pass? Most of them. Most Wikipedia articles about crimes don't have stand-alone biographies about the participants. One famous example: Killing of Michael Brown.
  
  You can split any big GNG topic into infinite subdivisions in this way where they “technically” pass ... No you definitely cannot. Each subdivision would have to get WP:SIGCOV, that's why you can't keep breaking it down; at some levels of detail, you won't get SIGCOV. What makes Chauvin notable is the SIGCOV of Chauvin.
  
  I reject the well documented aspect If you argue Chauvin's role in the murder of George Floyd is not well documented -- it was recorded on multiple video cameras -- you're just misrepresenting the sources.
  
  in Chauvin’s case there is no encyclopedic benefit "Encyclopedia benefit" -- whatever that means to you -- is not part of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I don't know what that means to you, but I certainly think there is a great deal of encyclopedic benefit in a biography of George Floyd's murderer. Just like other significant criminals.
  
  The reason why NCRIMINAL, and BLP1E, both talk about significant roles in significant events is because they recognize that the person who has a significant role in a significant event will often pass GNG. Having a significant role in a significant event usually makes a person WP:N-notable (and famous). Levivich (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Levivich Hm, I probably could have said that better. My bad. What I meant was outside of “he did it”, what is there to say? Any crime is going to have a perpetrator, but what more detail can we go into better here that would not be needed on the main page. He did a crime described on that page and was convicted, described on the main page.
  
  Wilson was never convicted of any crime and there was never a legal determination that a crime had taken place. Nevertheless there is actually far more coverage of Wilson as a person than there is about Chauvin.
  
  Now that we’ve got this example, however, I will use it to illustrate this:
  
  entire academic article just about his speech
  
  massive, entirely about him as a person New Yorker article
  
  https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/ichuman16&section=6
  
  book that mentions him 40 times
  
  book that mentions him repeatedly
  
  Wilson is actually probably more notable than Chauvin. Why not have an article on him? He is a significant person in a significant event. What is the difference when the coverage of Chauvin is actually worse? He clearly passes the GNG! PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Outside of "he did it", what there is to say: everything in Derek Chauvin § Early life and education and § Career... a.k.a. everything before the murder of Floyd, and everything in Derek Chauvin § Tax-evasion case, § Ramsey County jail discrimination complaint, and § Prison attack... a.k.a everything after the murder of Floyd that's not about the murder of Floyd. None of those sections would belong in the Murder of George Floyd article. Levivich (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  And they don't matter at all for understanding the event, which is the entire reason we split it in the first place? They're only included because we presuppose it is notable. You can do this with literally any person accused of a high profile crime. That doesn't mean we should have articles on every person in addition to the biography. What criminal doesn't pass the notability guideline in your logic? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I think understand the criminal is crucial for understanding the crime. The criminal who doesn't pass the notability guideline is the one who doesn't have SIGCOV about them (or otherwise doesn't meet GNG). Yes, many high-profile crimes will result in biographies of the perpetrator being written, and thus the perp will be notable enough for a stand-alone Wikipedia bio. Most crimes, even most notable crimes IMO, won't result in SIGCOV about the perp, and thus no notability for the perp. Levivich (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PARAKANYAA, I appreciate what you're doing but I think we're heading for a SNOW KEEP. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 01:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ghuraba training camp

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

War on terrorism WP:CRUFT by a now WP:CBANed editor. Egregious failure of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and utterly lacks focused WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Qaeda safe houses, Kabul, which the community reached consensus to delete. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related pages that meet the same deletion criteria:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Terrorism, Afghanistan, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable, it is impossible to improve any of these articles to a satisfactory state. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (non notable topic, I could only find passing mentions in a few books such as this and this, nothing else). ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2025 al-Funduq shooting

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

Also nominating the following related pages:

These articles fail WP:GNG. The only coverage is WP:ROUTINE news reporting in the immediate aftermath of the incidents, with no indication of WP:SUSTAINED or WP:LASTING coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and should not be the paper of record for every isolated act of violence, regardless of scale or tragedy, as part of broader conflagrations.

The presence of significant casualties is not, in itself, a criterion for notability under Wikipedia policy. Notability must be established through multiple, independent, and reliable sources that provide substantial coverage beyond mere event reporting. In these cases, such coverage is absent.

These nominations are being made in the interest of consistency and in light of WP:NPOV. Both Israeli and Palestinian-related events should be evaluated under the same criteria and to avoid selectively retaining articles based on the nationality of the victims.

By contrast, articles like 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack (Palestinian) and 2021 Tapuah Junction shooting (Israeli) meet notability due to broad and enduring media analysis and public discourse. These stand in stark contrast to the transient coverage seen in the articles nominated here and mirror the community's consensus to merge 2024 Tarqumiyah shooting (Israeli) and Shadia Abu Ghazala School corpses (Palestinian).

The nominated articles can be and should be merged into Timeline of the Gaza war. Longhornsg (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of 2025 al-Funduq shooting, 29 October 2024 Beit Lahia airstrike, and October 2024 Deir al-Balah mosque bombing

Generally, per WP:LASTING, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."
The al-Funduq shooting was only 3 months ago, so it is still recent. The death of one of the perpetrators was also mentioned as recently as last week, so that seems to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage.
The Beit Lahia airstrike and Deir al-Balah bombing are both mentioned in South Africa's “Public dossier of openly available evidence on the State of Israel’s acts of genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, as of 4 February 2025” (although the latter is only in a footnote). That these events will be used as evidence in the genocide case makes them lasting. The events are also recent enough that it feels slightly over-zealous to delete.

Not WP:SIGCOV, mentioned in several of over 100 footnotes in a 220+ page legal document. Longhornsg (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage was already established through WP:DIVERSE coverage in WP:RS, which is enough per WP:NTEMP.

I think you are misinterpreting WP:ROUTINE. Per WP:NOTROUTINE, "if an article goes into detail about the event, it is not necessarily "routine" coverage." EvansHallBear (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Support deletion of 2024 Ra'anana attack as event has had not lasting or sustained coverage over the past year.~~ EvansHallBear (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me absurd to delete that one and not the others because unlike the others that one actually did get coverage again recently [18]. So I would oppose deleting just that one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that in the article so assumed no subsequent coverage. Should have looked slightly harder. I'm now opposed to all deletions. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EVENT and NOTROUTINE. While it is a bit early for SUSTAINED, similar debates have shown that terroristic events get included in books and revisited in newspapers, reports (as above), and databases. Every such event gets included in the national database with ample information. gidonb (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Starting to look a little like Trainwreckage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per EvansHallBear's comment, which you have not responded to. Easternsahara (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like it is suitable for keeping and relatively has enough sources.110 and 135 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. While we have too much coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Enwiki, so in this sense I have sympathy for this nomination, these events pass the applicable guidelines. It is my observation that Israelis keep revisiting terror events in newspapers, books and reports. We should really create more coverage of all the rest. gidonb (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge all, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre - lack of significant ongoing coverage in secondary sources. Can and should be merged as recommended by nominator if not deleted. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Hurghada attack

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Egypt, Armenia, Czech Republic, and Germany. 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)

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

Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL and is just a indiscriminate list of victims. E_F⁵ 15:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 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. — E_F⁵ 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. — E_F⁵ 17:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Terrorism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous AfD was closed as Keep, which I think was a mistake. The debate was pretty evenly divided; at best, it was a "No consensus," not "Keep." Angryapathy (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for now, as I think all three of the "victims" articles should be discussed together. As to concerns mentioned above, it should be noted that the previous AfD for this topic resulted in a pretty clear consensus that the topic meets WP:LISTN; while numerically there were 11 delete !votes and 16 keep !votes, it seems like the LISTN arguments were more persuasive to the closing admin per WP:NOTVOTE.
However, I'll reiterate what I said in the previous AfD. This list (and the other two) should probably be merged, and trimmed to link only to notable people. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL (in the literal sense - the National September 11 Memorial & Museum is literally a memorial and we don't need to copy every name from the 9/11 Memorial), we shouldn't list all the non-notable people who died here. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AFD, where nom's points were thoroughly rejected, and procedural keep as a partial nomination out of context. Can we please AfD a little less and concentrate more on the article space? I hold that I can support both keep and procedural keep as both routes are applicable and lead to the same outcome. gidonb (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides the procedural-ness, not seeing a compelling argument that wasn't already shot down in the previous AfD. Not memorial doesn't apply here as the list is notable. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 06:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somajyoti ✉ 07:30, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Fallon, Nevada shooting

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Nevada. Fram (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS due to lack of WP:LASTING and a classic case of WP:DOGBITESMAN. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another senseless article from the true crime part of our project that really needs to be better about sensitivity and notability; this simply is neither. Nathannah • 📮 14:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a run-of-the-mill shooting (no better way to describe something like the in the United States unfortunately) lacking in notable coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens :(, per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is very small with little info and not well made.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteInsufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:48, 30 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and California. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 22 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]

Delete: I agree with the nom, fails wp:sigcov and wp:gng. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:29, 30 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

(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]

Merge into a "Further reading" section of the article about the Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar. While that article currently mentions the book, this is only in passing. The book is not cited as a source and there are no publication details about the book that a formal citation or "Further reading" entry would carry. If the article is merely blanked and redirected then that publication information, which is in the stub article, would be lost. Also, there appears to be sufficient content in the article about the disappearance of Bobby Dunbar to flesh out the article about the book, A Case for Solomon with details of the authors' motivations for writing it, so I would support Keeping the article if it can be improved with additional content and sources. The purpose of deletion is to challenge the notability of an article, not delete articles that currently have little content. This article currently has one cited source which suggests the book is potentially notable if there are other sources that are not currently cited. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:NBOOK with reviews in Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Maclean's, the Boston Globe, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Vanity Fair. Will do my best to expand the article a bit based on these reviews now. MCE89 (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was confused by the disconnect between the article and the nomination until I checked the history and saw that it had just been edited. The sources added by @MCE89: support notability per WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources in the article meets WP:NBOOK. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough now to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 06:25, 20 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion per nom and wikipedia is not a collector of information. Easternsahara (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect to Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024 Iban14mxl (talk) 04:00, 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 01:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Xinmin

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Terrorism. Skynxnex (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Coverage has continued years after his death; this source is from 2020. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:30, 15 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]

Delete fails WP:GNG Iban14mxl (talk) 05:34, 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]

Delete per BLP1E/BIO1E (person only discussed for involvement in a single non-notable event) and TNT (AI-generated). Toadspike [Talk] 12:57, 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.

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:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, Technology, and United Kingdom. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of mentions in Gscholar [19] or [20] second one seems to be about the ORG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the author for the second reference works for the ISF, which would make it not independent. Let'srun (talk) 23:16, 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]

Comment: Since !voting, I’ve added a new WP:RS from Carnegie Mellon, copyedited for tone, and cleaned up promotional/unsourced content. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I evaluated every source in the article and in the discussion, and we do not have a WP:GNG pass, much less a WP:NORG pass. See table below:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167404806000563			WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1742684706704839	The author is a consultant for ISF			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20141018220906/https://www.securityforum.org/tools/sogp/	This book is published by the organization	~	~	✘ No
https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/isf-maps-nists-cybersecurity/	A WP:TRADES publication; independence for these sources is questionable			? Unknown
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7cead540f0b6629523c97f/bis-13-1294-uk-cyber-security-standards-research-report.pdf			Trivial mentions in tables on information security frameworks	✘ No
https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/documents/451/2013_019_001_299133.pdf				✔ Yes
https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/92688-information-security-forum-explores-the-risks-and-challenges-of-open-source-software	Reprint of a press release from the subject (see here)	~	~	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20141018222734/https://www.securityforum.org/events/isf-annual-world-congress/, https://web.archive.org/web/20141018220958/https://www.securityforum.org/membership/isflive/	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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 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 [21] [22] [23] 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]

Keep per my comments above as well as PARAKANYAA‘s. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: or merge to an article about the corruption scandal. The NY Times article is about a bigger scandal, Fu is mentioned briefly, archive here [24]. The SCMP source is probably better [25] (archived copy), but they both deal more with the scandal than about the individual. I suppose Fu could be notable, but there is a decent amount of sourcing about the corruption trial/event (even the books cited a few comments above mention more about the event than about this person, who is only mentioned). Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Well, you say redirect, but we don't have any article to redirect to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's likely sourcing in Mandarin, the scandals were probably the only thing dramatic enough to make it to Anglophone printing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'd have to create the article I suppose. We have at least enough for a stub. Oaktree b (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we keep this until we have a stub to merge it with. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:22, 12 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 [26] – 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 [27], 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 [28] might constitute sigcov. He is also mentioned twice in this [29] 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage at the time of the event and more information 3 months later. Here is another update from February 2025 - https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/neha-hiremath-s-family-demands-cbi-probe-into-2024-murder-case-101738609866972.html An event with media updates at three points in time is sustained coverage. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:44, 16 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]

Keep per Bluerasberry there is sustained coverage and it passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:40, 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 redirect‎ to Garda Síochána with the option of merging well-sourced content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile Liaison Officer

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep (and improve/move to Garda National Youth Diversion Bureau or Garda National Youth Diversion Programme). As noted in the nom, the article at this title is/was something of a disaster. However, I don't think that WP:DYNAMITE is the answer here. In my own WP:BEFORE it seems that the titular subject (a "Garda Juvenile Liaison Officer" or "JLO") acts under the Garda Youth Diversion Programme. (As per this source and this one and here). While the concept of a "JLO" is discussed in several sources (like here or here or here), I'm not sure the role/job/class of Gardaí has independent notability. However, the program of which they are part, the Garda Youth Diversion Programme, possibly is. And so I'd recommend that the article be moved to that title. And updated to cover that programme/bureau. With a small amount of the role of a JLO, within the bureau, covered by sources like this. Failing that, we could merge/redirect some of the text to the Garda Síochána title. And cover it WP:WITHIN that title. Guliolopez (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge I'm not sure it warrant more than a few lines on Garda Síochána. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:55, 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!} 23:14, 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. 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[30] -- 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[31] 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:

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. N
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. N
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. N

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. N 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: [32] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ 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]

Keep. I would normally be a delete on articles like this, per WP:NOTNEWS if the coverage in WP:RS were limited to fleeting WP:PRIMARY. However, this shooting and its aftermath garnered significant WP:SIGCOV in a diverse array of WP:RS across the world meeting WP:DIVERSE ([33], [34], [35], there was continued coverage of subsequent developments in the case in international news wires and outlets in the months and years following the shooting meeting WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE ([36], [37], [38], [39]) WP:SIGCOV of the subsequent manhunt ([40]), WP:LASTING due to the shooting being part of events that predicated subsequent clashes that drew international coverage and analysis ([41], [42], [43]) and Israeli settlers named a outpost after the victim, which became a flashpoint in following years ([44], [45]), among other coverage. There are a lot of these incidents that don't satisfy WP:GNG. This isn't one of them. Longhornsg (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The manhunt, trial, and razing are all breaking news themselves. It's still pure news, just for aspects that happened years apart. "Part of events" is also carrying a lot of weight here since those sources aren't about this subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these additional news stories, about things which were caused by the initial incident, refer back to back the original attack. This unquestionably demonstrates that this attack had lasting impact well beyond the "breaking news" story. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sirfurboy and my understanding of WP:PSTS. For events like this, being covered in the news is a given, but notability comes from multiple secondary sources – that's what makes an event significant enough to be in an encyclopedia. This doesn’t seem to meet that threshold. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS and all the convincing deletion arguments above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Easternsahara (talk) 23:41, 18 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]

Keep per EVENT, GNG and Longhornsg. gidonb (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- This user doesn't seem to exist, let alone being extended confirmed? Bob drobbs (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Click page history and contribs beside their name on their edit. They do and they are. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:40, 25 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

[1] Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.

[1]