Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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

2025 Hollywood car attack

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, United States of America, and California. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A vehicle-ramming attack isn't routine, and we have on the order of 100 articles on individual ramming attack incidents, listed at List of vehicle-ramming attacks and also Template:Vehicle-ramming attacks, some of which have existed for a decade (e.g., 2015 Oklahoma State University homecoming parade attack). There is no community consensus to interpret WP:EVENT as precluding this category of article. Einsof (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Category:Vehicle-ramming attacks in the United States. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories, and articles should only be created for events if they are the subject of significant sustained analysis. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are not counted when determining consensus at AfD. If you want to write about random non-notable incidents like this, do so at List of vehicle-ramming attacks or over on Wikinews. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rumor has it that Wikinews is going to be folded into Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 00:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-lethal car ramming, routine for USA, no indication of any lasting significance. WWGB (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ultimately falls right on the side of routine, minus an outside chance of coverage picking back up later if the motive ends up being terrorism etc. I don't buy the WP:WAX argument and especially not the comparison to 2015 Oklahoma State University homecoming parade attack, which had significantly more injuries and deaths. This might be recreated if and when coverage picks up in a big way but I wouldn't count on it from what I see in the article. Departure– (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Incheon shooting

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Korea, and South Korea. XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is more of a news murder than encyclopedic shooting event Czarking0 (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Guns have been completely and strictly banned in South Korea for many decades. So this incident shouldn't be compared with any shooting case in the US, since their possession of firearms is so widespread and public. Meanwhile, multiple media outlets confirmed that the perpetrator was involved in an attempted bombing on a large residential complex where he lives, so that many people even started to view the case as "terrorism".

Timers were set to explode at noon and the whole building might be endangered if they went enabled, all confirmed by an official police briefing.

The most recent shooting crime in South Korea, excepting this and any military incidents, took place more than nine years ago, proving any gun crimes in South Korea are super rare, unlike the US having annual cases of mass shootings without skipping a year. I think I showed enough that the case is not routine at all and so unusual. -StarBiologist (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Replying to the above as well; while the event is certainly unusual, judging on our own of what is unusual isn't really part of WP:NEVENT. Plenty of unusual things with minimal impact and coverage only around the time of the event that wouldn't pass the criteria. Until there's more clear evidence of WP:EVENTCRIT, I lean delete. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extremist Groups

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

After a lengthy before check I found nothing. There is one review from Daniel Pipes in a source I believe we have declared unreliable so we cannot use that. Even if we could, that's only 1 review. The only other source I found is 1 sentence in a choice review for a different book that compares them, which also does not help, and lots of citations with 0 said about the work. This book had three editions under the same title with different authors and none seem to have gotten other reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Crime, and Terrorism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the review from Daniel Pipes is unreliable. There is some discussion of the book in The Roanoke Times here regarding what the book says about the group Muslims of America. Other than that, I have not been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources of the book. The book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Lilly and Jack Sullivan

AfDs for this article:

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

This tragic disappearance of two children happened about two months ago. In my last AfD, I highlighted concerns regarding the BLP violations going on at this article, and the lack of enduring historical significance as required by WP:EVENTCRIT. Simply put, this event cannot yet have enduring historical significance, as it only happened two months ago - there is nothing that sets this case apart and makes it particularly unique, and there has been no impact as a result of the case because it remains unsolved. Nothing about the RCMP's methods have changed as a result of this case, no laws have changed as a result of this case. Continued coverage on the topic has been largely retelling prior details, with the addition of the occasional statement from the RCMP. While tragic, this very much falls under routine and perhaps too soon. This case has sparked continued speculation on true crime forums across the net, leading to plenty of unsavoury discourse, which has led to such things as the inclusion of coordinates, and birthdates sourced to a Facebook post on this article. I don't dare edit this article myself beyond posting the AfD, because the RCMP have issued warnings regarding spreading rumours and misinformation about this family. The last AfD ended in no consensus, but I do not believe any convincing argument has yet been presented that asserts the notability of this event. MediaKyle (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments outlined in WP:NOTTOOSOON, even if it’s an essay. I’m seeing WP:SUSTAINED coverage from at little as 2 days ago. There is no merit to the “it’s not unique” argument, as things don’t have to be unique to be notable. I’m also not sure why “true crime forums” were brought up in the nom statement… ^EF⁵ 15:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per eventcrit: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Sustained coverage is not enough to prove notability of something like this - if it was, I can think of a great deal of petty crime articles I could be writing. Bringing up the off-wiki discourse is relevant because it informs why the article is receiving the attention it is, and where the constant BLP violations are coming from. This article has already been subject to oversight actually in its short lifespan. MediaKyle (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaKyle, yes, it is (are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance). The "significance" in this case is the sustained coverage surrounding their disappearance. Notice how EVENTCRIT says most crimes and not all. — ^EF⁵ 12:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 shooting of Texas Border Patrol officers

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

WP:NOTNEWS. The article was created with the anticipation that the attack would be more notable than it actually was WP:BREAKING. While researching this topic to clean it up there is little to no coverage of the incident just a few days afterwards. Raskuly (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, United States of America, and Texas. Raskuly (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, very clear cut for reasons given above. Alternatively could redirect to 2025 in Texas. Nayyn (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There was also a shooting in Vermont at the same time, it appears that sources talk about one or the other, but I'm not seeing lasting notability. There was also a South Park episode that pops up with a similar theme, but that's not helpful. I don't see lasting notability, as sourcing have largely moved on to cover other things. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge into a topic about the ongoing ICE and CBP protests. I think there is some notability to this despite not resulting in much, as this was a very unusual event, but Im not sure it passes the threshold. Metallurgist (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - redirect to 2025 in Texas. This is notable for that article. Not as a stand alone article.BabbaQ (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Vadodara bomb hoaxes

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT. There are a lot of school bomb hoaxes, the coverage here is not extensive. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article meets WP:NEVENT because This is not a single, trivial event but a series of hoax bomb threats across multiple institutions (schools, airport, power plant, collector’s office) in Vadodara in 2025. It had serious public impact and law enforcement response (evacuations, cybercrime involvement, and arrests).

The event has received non-trivial, significant coverage in independent and reliable sources such as The Times of India, The Print, and Indian Express. Coverage is not routine or passing; it includes detailed reporting, investigation follow-up, and national relevance.

As per WP:NEVENT, this qualifies for inclusion. Deletion is not appropriate when a topic meets both WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. --Warm Regards, Abhimanyu7 talk 09:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bombs threats, even series of them, happen. Bombs threats often get coverage for a few days and get the schools evacuated; this does not make this case more severe than average. There is not national relevance or follow up. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT. No international coverage, no significant impact, no lasting effects (so far) and it's too soon to say whether there's continued coverage. Astaire (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Brugnara

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating the Luke Brugnara article for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia’s notability standards for biographies. While the subject has received some coverage due to legal issues, the majority of the article focuses disproportionately on criminal convictions, clearly falls in WP:Crime.

Additionally, much of the content lacks reliable secondary sources and appears to rely on local or sensational media, which may not meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability. The article could be viewed as violating Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View and Biographies of Living Persons policies due to the lack of context and breadth. Unclethepoter (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and California. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure tax evasion is notable. Even defrauding an art dealer is a rather low-level crime. I don't see notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep I see [1](subscription required) and [2](subscription required) as sufficient to meet WP:GNG, especially in combination with other sources already in the article. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the above references 1 & 2 may offer coverage, it's important to consider whether they meet the depth and independence required by WP:GNG. Subscription-only sources can be difficult for other editors to verify, and without access it's hard to assess whether they provide significant coverage or merely mention the subject in passing.

Most of the existing article content appears to rely on primary or court-related sources, which may not establish lasting notability. WP:GNG emphasizes sustained coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources—not just notoriety from legal proceedings. Unless stronger sourcing is presented that demonstrates broad, in-depth coverage beyond criminal activity, I believe the page may not serve an encyclopedic purpose. Unclethepoter (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails to establish significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, beyond coverage of his legal troubles Per WP:BIO, WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E.--FreaksIn 15:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 22 July 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Uus Street

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

WP:HOAX and a devious one considering the subject matter and source falsification involved.
First off, the article today[3] is virtually identical to the version created on 26 February 2017 by User:DJ Sturm with two edits, second as IP [4][5]. DJ Sturm is globally locked by stewards for "Cross-wiki abuse".[6]
Massacre of 83 Jews literally in the middle of Tallinn in 1941 should have been fairly noteworthy event in context of Holocaust in Estonia, but google, google scholar, and google books gave no relevant results which didn't seem to originate back to his article.
Breakdown of source falsification:

Hillgruber, Andreas (1989). "War in the East and the Extermination of the Jews". In Marrus, Michael (ed.). Part 3, The "Final Solution": The Implementation of Mass Murder, Volume 1. The Nazi Holocaust. Westpoint, CT: Meckler. pp. 85–114. ISBN 0-88736-266-4., p. 98. - Hillgruber's article can be seen online here. It makes no mention of this massacre. Stahlecker is only mentioned once regarding Riga.
Haakristi haardes.Tallinn 1979, p. 84 - It can be viewed in digitized form in certain Estonian libraries, so I took a look and again has nothing to do the article's subject or text.
Merila, Toomas (1999). The Holocaust in Estonia. Tallinn: Varrak, p. 77., p. 79. - Fake book. Can't be found on Woldcat, Google Books, or Ester (Estonian online library catalogue). Only Toomas Merila who pops up is sports coach.
Quoted in Eugenia Gurin-Loov, Holocaust of Estonian Jews 1941, Eesti Juudi Kogukond, Tallinn 1994: pg. 194 - Book itself does not seem to be fully available in digital form, but it can be seen that pp 178-214, which includes "cited" pg. 194, should be lists of victims[7][8], and are actually available in some form here [9][10] which does not match in any way text it is used as source for, so taking everything account, safe to say that another fake reference.
Nuremberg Military Tribunal, Einsatzgruppen trial, Judgment, at page 209, quoting exhibit NO-2688. - Einsatzgruppen trial records can be seen here. While there are plenty of mentions for Stahlecker and Estonia, none of them mention the massacre or match text in the article. "exhibit NO-2688" does not exist.
"Report Phase II: The German Occupation of Estonia 1941–1944" (PDF). Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. 1998. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-20. Retrieved 2017-02-26. - Again no mention of the massacre. In source Jägala camp is not mentioned in the context of killing local Jews in 1941, but instead then talking about foreign Jews brought into Estonia from 1942 onwards.

Finally I did a little search on what actual historians who have investigated the Holocaust in Estonia have written about this period, and again their descriptions completely contradict the idea of large public massacre in middle of Tallinn.

Anton Weiss-Wendt On the Margins: Essays on the History of Jews in Estonia pp 243-244 (accessible via wikipedia library at de Gruyter [11])

The Estonian case poses a challenge to the generally accepted view of how the Holocaust was carried out in Eastern Europe. Unlike in Latvia and Lithuania, there were no anti-Jewish pogroms or ghettos; no death squads staffed and sometime managed by natives, like the Arājs Commando in Latvia or the Hamann Commando in Lithuania. The daylong mass executions of Jews at the IX Fort in Kaunas or Rumbula near Riga did not happen in Estonia until a year later. Due to fierce Soviet resistance, roughly two-thirds of Estonia’s Jews managed to escape to Russia in the summer of 1941. The remaining one thousand or so Jews were apprehended by the Estonian Security Police, which conducted a pseudolegal investigation into each individual case. Thus, Estonia was spared the atrocities and public humiliation that accompanied the Nazi mass murder of Jews in other East European countries. Most Estonians, if they bothered to think of it at all, believed that justice had been served and that the executed Jews were punished for a reason.

et:Meelis Maripuu THE EXECUTION OF ESTONIAN JEWS IN THE LOCAL DETENTION INSTITUTIONS IN 1941–1942 [12]

As in Tartu and Pärnu, also in Tallinn the arrests of the Jews started immediately after the conquest of the city by the German troops. The lists of the individuals to be arrested, including Jews, were prepared in Tartu already prior to conquering Tallinn. Within three days from the conquest of Tallinn on 28 August the Omakaitse had already arrested 42 “Jewish communists”, 182 members of the destruction battalions, and 150 “other suspicious persons”. Most likely the orders of arrest had been issued by the German military authorities and not by the Security Police and SD. These orders made the Estonian policeman responsible for the arrest of the male Jews. The male Jews were first sent to the political police or to the local police station. Already then they were kept separately from other prisoners. After some days the prisoners were transferred to the Tallinn Central Prison. In the course of the transfer, the Jews were separated from the Estonians and placed in separate cells.

Staberinde (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, Judaism, and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the nomination and my own research - there were no massacres of Jewish people in Tallinn. Pages like this reduce our reliability and harm our reputation, and encourage Holocaust denialism. Consider salting or similar admin action. Bearian (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on previous comments and own search. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:16, 20 July 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 Lexington shootings

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, United States of America, and Kentucky. XYZ1233212 (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete this WP:NOTNEWS example. An unfortunately common altercation with a cop gotten out of hand is unlikely to have lasting coverage. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the church shooting? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine crime, not the subject of sustained secondary analysis. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories, nor should it be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 15:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not because of the traffic stop shooting, but because the mass shooting at a church. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good third party sources. Still interest from media. Cover WP:GNG at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sadly seems to be another domestic dispute, but the tone of the article as written now is sensationalist and poor. Nathannah • 📮 20:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mass casualty event that has received widespread coverage. Thriley (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mass casualty event where coverage has been around the globe. Notable enough to keep. Nintenga (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, as tragic as it is, this shooting does not appear to be particularly notable when compared with the list of 30 or so mass shootings that have happened in America in this month so far. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tacky nomination. The victims aren't even embalmed yet. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025. Mass shootings in the United States (as defined) are almost a weekly occurrence. This would fall under WP:MILL coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as received significant national coverage across major news outlets Macbrindle (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Welcome to the U.S.; it's already out of the news cycle. ^EF⁵ 16:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Basically a family shooting which involved the police. Not at all exceptional in the US. Fleeting media coverage, now passed attention. WWGB (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thriley and Nintenga. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine event in the US. Sandstein 17:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been conflicted, so I haven't voted, but while gun violence in the United States is commonplace (even mass shootings), church shootings are not. I understand that this is also a domestic incident, but this escalated into a broader attack. Raskuly (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gun violence in the U.S. is common, but targeted domestic terrorism shootings such as this are not. Calling this type of crime "routine" is incorrect. Also, when the bodies are still warm it's hard to make the case that this has no WP:LASTING coverage. Keep, wait and see if there is WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and reevaluate in the future. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did you mean to vote in favor of keeping it? I've also not seen this attack referred to as "domestic terrorism". Raskuly (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt: Luigi Mangione and the CEO Murder - A Special Edition of 20/20

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The couple of sources confirms that WP:ITEXISTS but there's no in-depth coverage. मल्ल (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Crime. मल्ल (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredibly standard 'rush to air' episode of a newsmagazine dealing with this type of news regularly as a true crime show. There is nothing unique about this episode of 20/20 compared to other breaking news 'special editions' of the series. Nathannah • 📮 16:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete are there other 20/20 standalone specials that have their own entries? Only one I saw was Bad Romance: A Special Edition of 20/20, which is actually a series. If anything, I think it would make sense for some info/refs from Luigi Mangione and the CEO Murder - A Special Edition of 20/20 to be pulled onto the 20/20 entry, under Special episodes. I understand the level of media attention this topic is receiving, but still needs to follow guidelines rather than be existing due to sensationalism--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/redirect to Luigi Mangione#Public image per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Luigi Mangione#Public image says, Mangione has been the subject of multiple documentaries, TV shows, news specials, and a satirical comedy musical. This paragraph could be expanded to briefly discuss Manhunt: Luigi Mangione and the CEO Murder - A Special Edition of 20/20 in a sentence or two. I found several sources about the documentary film: 1, 2, 3, and 4 but they largely were published before the documentary film was aired and are about how to watch it. I did not find any reviews of the documentary film.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special interviews and reports can be of unique note. But I am not seeing it explained how this special held such note. SecretName101 (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus on a merge target yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable episode. Could be a brief mention in the article about 20/20 as it was made and aired quickly after the event, but no lasting significance. Sourcing is only from the time it aired ... Nothing since that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Proposed deletions

Deletion Review