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

Killing of Ryan Hinton and Larry Henderson

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

Run of the mill news story, and I don't see anything on them from before that. This is a WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E problem, and fails WP:GNG as well. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Police, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who created Killing of Ryan Hinton and Larry Henderson.

What's going to happen with this article is the exact same thing that happened with a different article that I created, and which was also nominated for deletion.

I recently created Rochester, Minnesota racial slur video, and it was nominated for deletion, for the same reason as this one. But soon afterward, a bunch of other people added a whole bunch of content, and the deletion nomination was withdrawn.

The exact same thing will happen with this article.

Give it a week. It if turns out that I'm wrong, then I'll admit that I was wrong, and I'll be OK with deleting it.

R5Y93mdf (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect with history to Cincinnati Police Department. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not mentioned at the Cincinnati article. If you want to merge it there that is another thing, and would be fine. BLP1E doesn't apply because this isn't a biography though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad University shooting

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

While clearly serious, this shooting involved no fatalities (fortunately), appears rooted in a personal dispute, and lacks any indication of broader significance, national/regional impact, or lasting consequences/discussion. Coverage is minimal and localized Mooonswimmer 05:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was considering deletion when I came across this in NPP earlier. I agree that this event doesn't seem to have had lasting impact and was only reported in passing in local news sources – one of which appears to have been closely paraphrased here. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Iraq. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only has local news coverage, there is not much impact. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find limited news coverage from the day of the event, nothing since. Does not appear to have any lasting effect, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: The dispute issue is clearly alleged & there is probably more into it. This was an attempted mass murder & should be treated like one. There are many victims aswell who were impacted by this shooting & although it only lasted 50 seconds, it could've been much worse if it wasn't stopped on time. Currings (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Shankargb (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the shooting was (allegedly) inspired by Western-styled school shootings, thus giving a sense of notability and broader meaning a part of a more global phenomenon.
Delete I am also feeling this—there is not really enough source to hold this article by itself, no? It is not yet covered in a way that gives it the weight to stand alone. Maybe in some time, if more is written, we can think again to bring it back, with more roots under it. Ismeiri (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this wasn't copyvio I would suggest a redirect to University of Baghdad. The title should redirect there afterwards and we should probably add a section. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Melissa Batten

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Not shown to have continued coverage beyond news reports at the time of the incident and consequent investigation. A state representative later cited the case when a state gun control law was passed six years later (per this article), but this seems like a passing mention. Bridget (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Crime, Events, and Washington. Bridget (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event led to legislation, even if the mention of the original event was brief in context of the legislation. Between the in-depth coverage of the event and the eventual lasting effect, I would consider it notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is sigcov in this academic article from 2015 [1] which seems pretty good and analytical about the case and its impact. ~~Weak keep~~ unless I can find more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There also appears to be significant coverage (maybe only of the perpetrator? I can't tell, he had some notability as a creator outside of the crime. it covers the game development which due to timing i believe may intersect with the murder) in Designers & Dragons by Shannon Appelcline. So keep probably. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a relatively lengthy description of the circumstances surrounding the murder in a debate on gun rights from 2013 as an example of lasting coverage [2] Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also several paragraphs from the NYT in 2013. [3] PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle Times and NYT articles on the gun control debate that you cite aren't significant coverage – there are only a couple paragraphs dedicated to the crime. Bridget (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you define as "significant coverage"? Per WP:SIGCOV it is "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I'd say several paragraphs counts, yeah. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are both lengthy articles that briefly touch upon multiple crimes, including Batten's murder, alongside each other. They do not look to me like they "[address] the topic directly and in detail" per WP:SIGCOV. Bridget (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Touching upon multiple crimes doesn't have much effect on whether it is sigcov. Criminology books regularly cover multiple crimes and that doesn't make the coverage not sigcov. A sentence is plainly a trivial mention, a short paragraph is not enough, I think multiple paragraphs is sigcov... It definitely does address the topic directly and in detail. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the results of the previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Melissa Batten. BOZ (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by PARAKANYAA and Anonrfjwhuikdzz, especially McNamara (2014–2015). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2001:8003:7473:B700:6D31:6171:8A39:89E (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Sunamganj violence

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

partially Notable but the quality of the article is very poor and there are like hundreds of such events of violence against this community and that but this event was not reflected much after the incident, users can create thousands of pages on the same topic but at a different date in just a day but its not done due to issues with relevance, i searched for sources which reflects on this incident which is atleast 3 months after but i couldn't find much. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Hinduism, and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No. The quality of the article isn’t all that bad; every sentence is backed by a reliable source. Your claim that “users can create thousands of pages on the same topic” isn’t true, because users can never create thousands of pages on the same topic. What do you mean by “its not done due to issues with relevance”? What exactly “happened after 3 months”? What on earth have you written? Somajyoti ✉ 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the article for yourself alright? When i meant "same topic", i meant that events of violence which is the topic of this article, thousands of articles can be created on a similar topic Because incidents of violence occur every day, just check the news, some even result in deaths, but impact matters. what I meant by relevance is that the article is not relevant unless you give a good argument to prove such, and i think you misunderstood my statement a lot, I searched online and offline for any newspapers or books that mention this topic after the incident ended to see if it is reflected on, oh ok you said "What on earth have you written", Should i say it again or do you want a list of what I wrote, make it clear. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has failed to make a case why the sourcing situation is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~[double !vote by nominator] - Then explain yourself Alright? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, you've nominated quite a few articles for deletion without appropriate rationales. Take the criticism constructively; articles don't get deleted for poor quality, they get tagged with cleanup templates. Also, is there a reason that after making the noms, you sometimes reply with a different signature, like in this case, Macarius Ibne Mito? It appears misleading. jolielover♥talk 17:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The different signature? Macarius Ibne Mito is my real name, sometimes i use that signature or should I just keep one, ok fine i'll keep one and i know articles are not nominated for quality issues. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:N, can anyone give references on its impact? I'll be convinced that keeping is the better option then, like on its impact? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you performed a thorough WP:BEFORE? Multiple significant sources like Prothom Alo, TBS, and DW provide broad coverage indicating SIGCOV. A quick search shows notability is clearly met. Chronos.Zx (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meeting WP:EVENT and WP:SIGCOV, with wide coverage in sources [Dhaka Tribune, Prothom Alo, TBS, and DW]. Chronos.Zx (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep qualifies for WP:GNG and widely covered also. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Mile

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

No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and any WP:LASTINGEFFECT. Feels like a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and even WP:BIO1E Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, Events, and Africa. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 massacres of Syrian Druze

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

Currently, I believe that this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Southern Syria clashes (April 2025–present) since information about the killings has been added into that article. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the name is not agreed upon and widely sourced as in the 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites, the reporting always puts it as a detail and not the main event (again as in the Alawites' case). While the events are devastating, I do not see them as more than a section in the Southern clashes article, and also we should refrain from solely using SOHR for these.

- RamiPat (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say the reporting puts it as a detail? Many of the citations already in the article talk about it as the main event. It's also causing ripple effects in Israel and many Israeli articles are talking about it as the main event. E.g. 1 and [-- 2A05:BB80:32:B913:5D54:1EA:B2D5:200E (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't call it a massacre if 5 civilians died alongside 35 Hijri loyalists. I agree with asclepias. Most of the information is either reused or is redundant enough to be put in Druze in Syria and/or Southern Syria clashes (April 2025–present) TedKekmeister (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The scope is valid, but the name could be changed to something more reflective of reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article in its current form blatantly misrepresents what happened like the usual Assadist propaganda that has been in Wikipedia since 2013. Daseyn (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just change the name like it is in southern Syria clashes JaxsonR (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clashes denotes a clash between the military of one side and another. But here we also see targeted killings of civillians which are reported on by RS and in enough quantity to justify a separate page Genabab (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Skitash (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add another comment, the SOHR numbers state the total number of executed civilian Druze as 10. I have to mention that there are 42 Druze that were ambushed in Suwayda Governorate on the Damascus-Suwayda motorway, but the SOHR does not mention wether they were fighters, civilians, or a mix of both. But the news outlets that do specify mention only fighters (like France 24). I do believe the civilians killed were massacred, but they were not mass massacres for a separate article on them like the massacres of Alawites, which that article is also under discussion to be merged with "Western Syria clashes (March 2025–present)"

- RamiPat (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NEVENT is satisfied. Delete arguments so far are not policy-based. Title or potential NPOV violations do not justify deletion. Redundant forks require merge discussions, not AfD discussions.TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I disagree; WP:REDUNDANTFORK has been used in previous deletion discussions, whether for deletion (this, this, or this), merging (this, this, or this), or redirecting (this, this, or this), thus I believe it is a valid argument to use. Considering that the two articles' scopes are very similar and this article's relevant content already was moved into there (and this article only has 3 paragraphs about the killings, so it can be fully merged without much trouble anyway), I think that this article is redundant. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to being a POV content fork, the article is a complete hoax. No reliable source described the events as a "massacre" or claimed that Druze civilians were targeted. Majority of the Syrian Druze are opposed to the pro-Israeli Druze seperatist groups of Hikmat al-Hijri.

The page, which was a crystal ball created on 1 May 2025, contradicted media reports that Druze factions had reached de-escalation agreements with the Syrian government by then. For example, BBC reported on the ceasefire and end of the clashes on 1 May 2025. The BBC report's summary of the clashes during 28-30 April 2025 made no mention of any "massacre".

Furthermore, several civilians are getting killed in Israeli air-strikes across Syria. (1, 2). Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was fighting as late as yesterday despite the ceasefire, and there have been many extrajudicial killings of Druze. Either the Golani regime doesn't have control of the myriad Jihadi factions that see Druze and Alawites as justified for slaughter (regardless of the past regime), or he condones it. FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's threat for the destruction of Iranian cultural sites

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

WP:NTRUMP. The sources in the article and the sources that i can find are all centered around when the threats were issued and do not support any long lasting impact. There's nothing in this article's contents either that justifies it existing and not just being deleted and having its contents merged in other us-iran diplomacy articles. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iran, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:FUTURE "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident." Politicians and elected officials make threats all the time - but it does not belong on Wikipedia unless it actually occurs.— Maile (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Reactions to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Seemingly no lasting coverage, and part of this wider topic. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC

Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Another one of those "things" by Trump. Unlikely to have lasting coverage nor continued coverage. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Trump says a hundred unhinged things a day that he never follows through on. Nothing happened here. Move along. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not more than a mention of Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration would be needed. Shankargb (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TRUMPCRUFT 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. A perfect example of such. Conyo14 (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish there was a "you supported him, you knew, you were warned, you agreed with my assessment of his status, but you voted for him anyway because eggs" option. Bearian (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:TDS Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Black Hat Hackers

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet Notability criteria. It may have gone viral in some Bangladeshi media at one point, but even then it wasn't notable in any way, and it certainly isn't now. Somajyoti ✉ 10:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 10:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No actual case has been made why the sourcing is insufficient. Coverage contributes to notability, and notability doesn't expire, unlike what the nominator claims. Cortador (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where the nominator claims notability expires. It isn't temporary, but it's always subject to reexamination. Previous discussions may have misjudged notability, or the community's notability guidelines may have shifted. The nominator says the organization was not and is not notable. A source assessment might prove (or disprove) their hypothesis. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cortador's statement is correct. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk), 03:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cortador. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group seems notable. Coverage also concerns more than just 1 event. Shankargb (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Scott Robinson

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

Violates WP:BLP1E. Should be redirected to List of longest prison sentences. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Oklahoma. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would very strongly oppose redirecting it there, that is not the kind of list we should be redirecting BLPs.

If there is better sourcing getting the longest prison sentence of all time is notable enough that it IMO invalidates the second prong of BLP1E. So then WP:NCRIMINAL is also a consideration. The sourcing I can find is not great so honestly he probably just fails the WP:GNG. But he does have an extremely generic name so I may be missing stuff. But unless there is more sourcing I failed to find, delete (Not redirect). PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or smerge is as appropriate as the sentence. Bearian (talk) 08:50, 5 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 redirect‎ to List of Bones characters. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gormogon (Bones)

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

A minor character in the Bones TV series. BEFORE turns up only reviews of episodes he featured in and a few scarce interviews; there is nothing actually discussing the impact, reception, or anything of this character. I'd suggest an AtD redirect to List of Bones characters. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Crime. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Current entry is just plot summary (WP:FANCRUFT that shows zero-level WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. Without significant coverage about its reception, this doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NOT. Redirect makes sense as an WP:ATD, where it can be mentioned in context of more appropriate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Not notable enough, WP:FANCRUFT. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:10, 7 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.

BF Borgers

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

Contested prod without explanation or improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Finance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 [4]. 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 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 [5] or [6] 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.

Crime Proposed deletions

Deletion Review