Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


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

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

See also: Social science-related deletions.

Crime

[edit]

Lea Fastow

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

Merge with Andrew Fastow and/or Miriam Hadar Weingarten, with likely redirect to her husband. Pretty clearly fails WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. guninvalid (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Variety312 This is the usual process for nominating an article for merging. See WP:AfD and consider installing WP:Twinkle. guninvalid (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Lincoln University shooting

[edit]
2025 Lincoln University shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not entirely convinced that this incident meets WP:NEVENT criteria and I suspect many interested editors are not even aware of the article's existence. National coverage was brief and this was one of several instances of gun violence at alumni and school sporting events, but in comparison to other articles that exist about some of those incidents, this incident seems much less notable based on coverage. If found to not be notable enough to warrant an article, I propose a redirect to Lincoln University (Pennsylvania)#History. Raskuly (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I heard a lot of local news about this because it actually happened in my county, but I will admit I was very surprised it was hardly covered at all by national sources, especially because it clearly met the criteria of a mass shooting. If it is agreed upon to delete here, I will not make an objection.
Red0ctober22 (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Tunnels Checkpoint shooting

[edit]
2023 Tunnels Checkpoint shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Lots of coverage, but this event did not have WP:LASTING. Could be one line on Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023: "On 16 November 2023, Hamas militants Abd al-Qader Qawasmeh, Hassan Ma'moun Qafisheh, Naser Abd al-Afo Qawasmeh opened fire on the Tunnels Checkpoint on Highway 60, killing Avraham Fetena of the Military Police Corps and injuring five others. All three Hamas militants were killed in the firefight, and the IDF demolished their hgomes in the West Bank." Longhornsg (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian mafia

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

Organized crime in Romania is clearly a notable topic, but the approach taken here smells like original research, starting with the title and the stiching of different illegal activities, from corruption in Romania to organized crime in Australia, without any source to properly link them together.

Some information in the article, such as the founding date, has no source and can be easily disproved [1] [2]. Other statements not supported by the provided sources are the first phrases of each subsesction in "History".

The article then continues with a list of notorious criminals, again, without any link or evaluation of their importance beyond press coverage.

The article also has style issues, with weasel words, repeated information (see the section Italy and the Oarza clan) etc. For these reasons, I propose to NUKE it and allow a fresh start under a more conservative title. Strainu (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete page 2601:410:8000:DA20:5995:D639:B2E7:5058 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023 Nablus incursion

[edit]
April 2023 Nablus incursion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is WP:REDUNDANT content of 2023 Huwara shooting, where this incursion is already covered as a related event of the shooting. RS entirely cover the incursion as an arrest operation in direct response to the shoorting. Redirect to the shooting page. Longhornsg (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkelon rocket attacks

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

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROSELINE. Redirect to Sheikh Omar Hadid Brigade. Longhornsg (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ashkelon per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Varanasi gang rape

[edit]
2025 Varanasi gang rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For an event to be presumed notable on Wikipedia, it must demonstrate lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. Indeed, going further, and we get most crimes[...] – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. This is a fairly high bar, and not one this article topic appears to pass.

Created in the week after the event was reported, but it wasn't even posted at ITN because, unfortunately, gang rapes are much too common in India and nobody could see any WP:LASTING impact.[3] Several months later, that remains true. There's been a handful of news article doubting the 19 year old's story, evidence that at least one claim may be false (which is why we don't write sensitive articles with breaking news stories), an announcement that the police stopped arresting people after new evidence emerged, and a few news stories when the SIT report was released, saying only that it couldn't rule out that a crime had occurred [4][5][6], but that's it. - Admittedly, my WP:BEFORE was hampered by the fact that that there were several gang rapes in Varanasi this year and last, (Wikipedia:ROTM) and the 2024 case kept coming up instead of the 2025 case, but I'm still not seeing sufficient, continued coverage. While Modi and a few other public figures made statements (or campaign promises) at the time, there were no mass protests, no actual change effected, and, as such, no more sources to work with. The article also has many BLP issues - the first revision was the worst, but it still presents many claims as facts in wikivoice ("[X Name][...]later threatened to circulate the footage as revenge porn."..."he raped her before leaving her in the Nadesar area"... "man identified as [Y NAME], who took her to his residence in the Hukulganj area" - some of these are taken directly from quotes attributed to the mother, and the newspapers do not state them in their own voice. I shouldn't need to explain to anybody what that's problematic.

TL:DR; Could this be notable in the future? Yes, absolutely. Is it now? The sources don't indicate so, and we are, by design, a lagging indicator of notability. If we were to have an article on this subject, it should be based on high quality, non-breaking news stories. It should be balanced, respectful of the living people whose lives were impacted by the event, and not be based on two weeks worth of breaking news coverage. I'm willing to push NEVENT a bit for events that are very likely to be notable, such as airline crashes or natural disasters, but not crimes. Let the world write the sources first, and we'll follow. Against ATDs for BLP reasons. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian: You mentioned risk to the victim, whom I think is not named in any of the identified articles. Do you see a risk to the victim for this article existing if 1) she is not named and 2) the accused are not named? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you pinged: GNG is not relevant: as an event article, NEVENT applies. An SIT report is, in fact, a good thing that a government should produce - and none of the coverage on it is anything but routine.
To answer your question, though - I think there's a risk to every party if we built sensitive articles on breaking news headlines, present unclear facts as though they are definitive, names included or otherwise. Why are you so opposed to recreating this in, say, three to five years, when the better sourcing emerges? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 16:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do agree with TNT though. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 17:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". The GNG is always relevant. Katzrockso (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNG are always preferred when determining notability, should they exist for a topic. Zalaraz (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, since per WP:N very explicitly states a topic is notable if it meets either the WP:GNG or a particular WP:SNG. Katzrockso (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it says that it's presumed notable. You can overcome that presumption; for example, if the sources are weak enough that you can't build an article adhering to core PAGs. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is not a new thing to see SIT getting formed after the crime has attracted some media attention, but that cannot be used for establishing notability. The subject fails WP:N and has failed to attract lasting coverage. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bluerasberry and the WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS states that "For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage". There coverage is neither routine nor does it fall into the listed examples of routine coverage. WP:ROUTINE similarly provides no rationale for why the coverage here should be excluded. Katzrockso (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the topic meets notability or not is inconsequential compared to the BLP concern affecting all parties involved. Keeping such an article only re-victimizes the victim and portrays the accused as a criminal without a real-life conviction, which violates WP:BLPCRIME. WP:NITROGLYCERIN is the way forward here. Zalaraz (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that could be fixed by editing. WP:Deletion is not cleanup, the job of AfD is not to delete articles that have problems satisfying content guidelines, but whether the topic is notable enough to warrant a different article in any shape or form. One way to resolve your concerns about WP:BLPCRIME is just to remove all the content that violates it, not by deleting the article. WP:TNT is an essay, not a deletion rationale based in policy. Katzrockso (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to let this be my last comment here: I actually looked into fixing this, before nominating (or at least, sketching out a way this could be fixed) However, I feel that the only way the BLP issues could be surmountable is with better quality sources, further removed from the event. We don't have those yet. Removing the content that runs afoul of BLP crime is deleting the article. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If BLP issues are to be fixed then the article will have to go, as it concerns non public figures and crime. Zalaraz (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:EVENTCRIT. It's WP:TOOSOON for WP:LASTING to be established as the event happened this year, and the coverage in WP:ROUTINE news cycle coverage which because they qualitative in scope are WP:PRIMARY sources and not WP:SECONDARY reporting. This type of coverage fails WP:NOTNEWS. We need WP:DIVERSE sourcing and sourcing which extends beyond normal media coverage of crimes.13:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, not news.Llwyld (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus and think that this is a discussion that probably shouldn't close as "No consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pushing this towards keep versus no consensus as the event at least passes WP:GNG. This is not a routine event based on 23 individuals and the SIGCOV that it garnered. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Ram Mandir attack

[edit]
2005 Ram Mandir attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article details a minor event which occurred two decades ago, and which has completely failed WP:LASTING. It resulted in no notable retrospectives, no policy analyses, no security reforms, no social or political shifts, no legal precedent, and in general no lasting consequences. Furthermore, the article has just a single source, entirely unsourced sections and significant issues with WP:V. For more than a decade, the article had another source, that being a WP:HOAX source which had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. The article has had WP:V issues since its conception but has not been improved at all. The state of the article in 2006 and today is indistinguishable. It should be deleted. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited by him suggests that the subject clearly satisfies the #2 criterion of WP:NEVENT, which mentions "or were very widely covered in diverse sources". Although it fails in the #1 criteria of WP:NEVENT owing to no proper WP:LASTING, this terror attack did play - a not very significant, but considerable role in the Ram Mandir Controversy over the past few years. Overall, seems just borderline enough for the article to save itself. BhikhariInformer (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not simply WP:LASTING that the 2005 Ram Mandir attack fails. The incident also fails WP:GEOSCOPE, another inclusion criteria under WP:NEVENT, which states, "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." GEOSCOPE further adds, "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." The WP:NEVENT inclusion criteria are not something to selectively choose, applying some criteria while ignoring others that the article does not meet. By definition, a criterion is something that should be fully satisfied by an article’s subject, something this specific case fails to do. We simply cannot say, "this article fails this criterion but should remain in the mainspace because it is WP:JUSTNOTABLE." — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 19:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not ready to close this now as "No consensus" but the arguments of participants has changed over the past two weeks. Right now, I don't see enough support for Keep or for Delete alone to close it on one of those options so maybe editors advocating one of those positions can get behind a reasonable ATD instead and we can gather a consensus here. I'm not making an argument for any outcome, my role as closer is simply to assess what might be the consensus coming out of the entire discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trykid made a substantial argument and none of the responses have held up against it in my opinion. WP:PERX is an essay, not a policy. EarthDude (talk · contribs), please do not WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. You have responded to nearly every single comment here, and much of it seems like WP:WIKILAWYERing at best. wound theology◈ 06:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes EarthDude, you have made half the entire comments to this page and added over one third of the text ([7]); that's classic WP:BLUDGEONing. Suggest you step back from the discussion ASAP. —Fortuna, imperatrix 07:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made "half of the comments on this page". What you're referring to are not comments but edits, most of which involved fixing some typos in my comments, adding the discussion to deletion-sorting lists so others could participate, or removing non-ECP comments per WP:CT/IMH. Claiming that I’ve been bludgeoning when I’ve responded to only some of the comments, mostly to clarify misunderstood guidelines and policies, address source misrepresentations, or respond to personal attacks, is absurd. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have responded to over half of the comments labelled keep, and per the linked utility, added over 1/3rd of the text on this page. That is classic WP:BLUDGEONing. Please read WP:BLUDGEON, which states plainly: If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear. You fit both of these criteria. wound theology◈ 11:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, had received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, thus meets WP:GNG. If deletion is consensus, then content should be merged as suggested by others into a relevant article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nota bene. I was content to give a simple WP:PERX (which is not actually against policy), but since there is substantial "discussion" going on above, including at least one case of an entire comment being removed for a percieved personal attack (which is flimsy at best), I'll make a beefy response as to why I voted Keep:
  • WP:NOTABLE. Terrorist attacks in which multiple people died, and had substantial coverage (as shown by Trykid), are inherently notable events.
  • WP:LASTING. I have seen no substantial argument as to why this attack did not have lasting effects, broadly construed. As UnpetitproleX (talk · contribs) noted, in a comment that was intially removed entirely (!) by an opposing editor, [a] terrorist attack is not your routine run-of-the-mill crime and it has been memorialized even in sources from 2024, 2025 [...] i.e. has had a lasting impact on people's memory.
  • WP:PAPER. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, and thus I'm partial to ignoring the very weak arguments invoking somewhat subjective interpretations of (e.g.) WP:GEOSCOPE.
In short, there's no solid reasoning for deleting the article. wound theology◈ 06:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Crime Proposed deletions

[edit]

Deletion Review

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Crime&oldid=1319933347"