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

Shooting of James Whelan

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

This murder fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. It clearly has no significant impact on the world, only British news sources covered this murder and not for a long period of time. The murder was forgotten within a month, no sources beyond April/May 2022. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and United Kingdom. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, no coverage past 2022 that I can find either. Appears to not have had a lasting impact. NOTNEWS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of initial coverage due to the relative rarity of gun violence in Ireland, but no lasting coverage or indications of wider impacts of the event. nf utvol (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. Spleodrach (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Wowk

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

Borderline speedy deletable as an attack page. Not notable as a politician, he is "notable" "for his numerous criminal cases", as the lead of this article proclaims. This boils down to a failure of WP:SUSPECT, with just one actual conviction (for evading provincial taxes, hardly something we write articles about), and then a lot of charges, accusations, and gossip about his wife. Fram (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and Canada. Fram (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose he fits all the criteria of WP:BLP, in such that he has more than 2 reliable major sources talking about him. If you don’t like the tone of the sources that is an entirely different problem and not exactly one for grounds of deletion. Scuba 13:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Backlog? Fram (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I was on mobile and meant BLP not BL, I'll fix it now for posterity. Scuba 13:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale behind "sufficient coverage" means you can't count the number of sources necessary to show a clear notability of a subject. For a BLP concentrating on negative activities, the bar is higher, in my view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to reread BLP, and specifically WP:BLPCRIME, if you think "more than 2 reliable sources talking about him" is "all the criteria of BLP". Fram (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well we have 11 sources, and he has been found guilty of his crimes. so I'm not sure why you're invoking WP:BLPCRIME here Scuba 13:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What crimes? Income tax fraud and storing a gun improperly? He isn't Jack the Ripper, these aren't notable crimes. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the article goes, he is not even conviceted of storing a gun improperly either, only of provincial tax evasion. But we do have "Wowk had run a computer consultancy named TKW Communications which, according to former employees, hadn't paid taxes from 2000 until they where caught in 2004, and that Wowk destroyed most of the tax records to prevent them from falling into auditor's hands": in reality, it is an allegation by one employee, and he doesn't say that "Wowk destroyed" anything, but that "He also stated that he would destroy all documents long before any auditors came in".[1] So that's some clear BLP violations right there. Fram (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, a one-time political candidate that had untaxed smokes and skimped on paying provincial income tax... That sounds like a character in crime noir thriller, nothing we'd use for an article in Wikipedia. This is silly. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not speedyable since the information is reliably sourced, although the excessive could be trimmed somewhat. My chief problem is I did a search for news sources, found all the ones already in the article, and then drew a blank. A genuinely notable figure would generate far more news coverage to the extent we wouldn't be running out of source material. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reliably sourced page with " material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person" is also an A10 candidate of course, not only unsourced pages can be A10 deleted. Fram (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Income tax fraud and improper weapons storage hardly are notable. Being a political candidate, never won a seat, does not meet NPOL. Just an individual that appears to have made poor choices in life, but nothing for Wiki notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Being in possession of untaxed tobacco? Seriously, this is not notable. I'd venture that a large majority of smokers in Canada have done this. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have reliable sources from 2021 and 2024, which appear to confirm his notability WP:BASIC, CBC by Geoff Leo, Regina Leader Post by Brandon Harder. The articles are 3 years apart and the subject was in the media. He won a Governor General of Canada award for "Fire Services Exemplary Service Medal" in 2021 [2] which would appear to confirm WP:ANYBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". The article does need some work, it does read like an attack page, but that can be trimmed down. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 18:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile Liaison Officer

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

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

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

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

Killing of Arul Carasala

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

This article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. The sources are very weak and do not prove that this killing is notable enough to have significant impact on the world. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, United States of America, and Kansas. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This event is still under investigation, and new details might emerge. I wouldn't immediately jump to deletion. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LunaEclipse, WP:CRYSTAL. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Beans, ??? My intention was to draftify the article and wait for new info to come out, and not add speculation to articles. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 15:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Some parts read like you were expecting some more coverage to come in the future. I should have kept my opinion to myself. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the assassination of a working priest is notable. Period. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Keith

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

I don't see anything that indicates WP:NMUSIC or even GNG. The best sources are local news coverage of Percy Keith being arrested for drug / gun charges, which definitely doesn't contribute to notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Crime, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. largely uncited with the first citation being a very fake youtube link, article is low quality, possibly generated by a llm and the creator has been banned see here for more info. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: this subject appears to fail WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:ANYBIO for lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 03:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, especially WP:GNG, and yet again today, WP:TNT. I'm also extremely concerned about several arguably per se defamatory statements in the article, depending on the jurisdiction (in some states, an allegation of impurity or an uncharged crime are still causes of action). I don't want to make the situation worse by pointing them out. You don't have to be paranoid to think that this might be a trap. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WeProtect

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

Fails WP:NORG. Absolutiva (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Absolutiva (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sources from The Guardian and The Independent seem enough to estabilishes WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Amsterdam stabbing attack

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

Minor incident - no deaths. WP:GNG is dubious (consider WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS). Very unlikely to have enduring effects; if they appear the article can be restored once enduring coverage is shown to exist. We are getting really too inclusionist with minor incidents like this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Netherlands. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the GNG and EVENT. By Dutch standards this is a major attack and the national and international coverage reflects that. The stabbing took place in the very heart of Amsterdam which further contributes to the interest. In the deletion rationale, nominator points at WP:SINGLEEVENT: "People notable for only one event". An attack is not a person so this does not support deletion. WP:NOTNEWS does not support deletion either: 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. The references used fall outside the domain defined by the policy. gidonb (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"By Dutch standards this is a major attack" - yet no Dutch Wikipedia article? And I see this as a routine reporting on a newsworthy but unencyclopedic crime that will be forgotten by everyone in few days._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage continues. Nlwiki is not known for quality. gidonb (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

😅 very convinient explanation Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help! If you're curious, you can read more about Nlwiki's quality here or check out the ongoing coverage in major Dutch and international media. gidonb (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep broadly covered, it happened in the center of big city. It's terrorist attack, to terror there no need to someone be killed. Many nations involved: US, NL, PL, BE victims, UK citizen's arrest and probably Ukrainian perpetrator; that 6 nations involved. That's international terrorism Bildete (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the GNG and EVENT. For now the sources and event is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. Ιf it has a more permanent impact (which I very much doubt) it can be recreated. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you doubt that the Dutch produce books, newspapers, magazines, news shows, and conduct research discussing, among others, mass stabbings? gidonb (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But is this an enduring event? Without that, it's just news that will be forgotten soon if it hasn't been already. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a hot topic every day https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/04/amsterdam-stabbing-suspect-had-terrorist-intent-investigators/ and will be for a long time. Also it's historical event first event of Ukrainian terrorism in western Europe as 2022 missile explosion in Poland and it happened in city center of big city, huge news, international victims Bildete (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, what is the connection of this to the 2022 missile explosion in Poland? Here a crazy guy stabbed few folks, none fatally. To me this is not a notable event, not until its coverage is enduring (as in, it is referenced in future years, preferably by academic sources). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was significant because for first time West civilians been killed by Ukrainian missile, this is one of the first case of Ukrainian nationalist terrorize the West and had really huge international covered, also because a lot of West citizens were involved as victims Bildete (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think you are making a good case that this article can be abused by Russian disinformation and propaganda, and we should delete it ASAP. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Come back when this is a case study or books are being written about it. Secondary coverage beyond the news is the bare minimum. Not sure what some of the keep votes are trying to accomplish with rationales that have nothing to do with the sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. it's historical event first event of Ukrainian terrorism in western Europe, actually there is only suspicion that this could be some kind of terrorism, though no indication whatsoever that it is "Ukrainian terrorism" (is there such a thing? Are its goals pro-Ukrainian or anti-Ukrainian?). It could equally be a motiveless crime committed by a disturbed person, who ist happened to come from Donetsk. {{TQ|Ιf it has a more permanent impact … it can be recreated)).Pincrete (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's looks like the only reason to delete is because Ukrainians don't want to see article about Ukrainian terrorist. That a significant event that been and still is broadly covered Bildete (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To me it looks like you're just hellbent on trying to connect this event to Ukrainian nationalism and "terrorism" because of the perpetrator's nationality. THEFREEENCYCLOPEDlA (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien hello, im not familiar with the English Wikipedia article deletion policy, so i would be happy if you would be able to explain to me why 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, and 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing considered notable enough for an article, and this article isn't. There an important detail that i didn't mention in the article cause i didn't found source in English for this particular claim but there a lot of Hebrew sources. This detail is the fact that the settlement of Evyatar was re-establish be Israeli settlers as "response" for this attack.Benbaruch (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone would have to look at those articles, but it's possible they aren't notable either. Articles about events on the English Wikipedia require sustained coverage beyond the initial reporting of the event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien, i understand, but what do think about the fact that a large output that currently being regulated by the Israeli government, was re-establish as "response" for this attack, don't you think that this fact makes the article about the attack notable enough? Benbaruch (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ~~Keep~~ There was the attack. Following that there was a manhunt which got coverage including his wife being arrested. He had a trial which got additional coverage. Then Israel military demolished his family home, which got coverage including the US State Department condemning it (a rare event).

The article needs work and additional sources, but I do think this incident and it's aftermath got sustained notice both within Israel but also around the globe. Searching using the name of the perpetrator is a good place to start for additional sources[3] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under scholarly sources, I found one book which doesn't just have a description of the attack but also discuss clashes and violence in response to Israel engaging in the manhunt[4] Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm updating my vote to Strong Keep after reviewing the number of sources which covered this attack and it's aftermath.

And while WP:OTHER isn't usually the strongest argument, in this case if we start applying a not-policy definition of secondary source which some here are trying to use to justify the deletion of even articles where hundreds of news articles were written about an event over a period of years, then much of this site would have to be deleted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd consider merge or redirect to an appropriate page, which is the level of treatment that this gets in the book above. To meet GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. The newspaper coverage is primary, as is the state department rebuke. The book, Jewish Lives Matter has only a short entry that does not significantly describe the attack such that a wikipedia page can be written. The nature of the work shows why multiple sources are required. We are certainly not at a WP:N pass yet, and if we are to rely on this kind of sourcing to keep an article then systematic bias in our coverage is likely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> The newspaper coverage is primary...

I'm not sure this understanding of secondary sources is correct. Reading through it again, a newspaper journalist synthesizing facts regarding an incident seems sufficient to qualify as secondary:

"A Secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"

Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

In which case, this incident got plenty of secondary source coverage over an extended period of time.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is meta. Which sources do you contest are secondary, and why? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, based on policy it seems that all that's required to be a secondary source is for someone at least one step removed from the event synthesizing facts about it. And for this story, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples over a period of years. Here are just a few of them:

In this Haaretz article about the conviction the journalist synthesized a bunch of related facts regarding this case.

https://archive.is/CzIV8

Here's an article which focuses on the demolition of his family's home, but also meets the metric of synthesizing facts:

https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/08/us-israel-palestinians-violence

Here's another one which condemns Rashida Tlaib for tweeting about the house demolition.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/07/11/antisemitic-congresswoman-rashida-tlaib-slammed-on-twitter-for-denouncing-demolition-of-palestinian-terrorists-home-failing-to-mention-his-victim/

The US embassy issuing a condemnation is a primary source. Tlaib tweeting about it is a primary source. But if any journalist writes about these things then that's a secondary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let's look at each of these:

The Haaretz article is a news report about sentencing of Muntasir Shalabi. This is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS or any good book on historiography. It is a discursive primary source, and it reports the background, that is, the shooting, saying Shalabi, a U.S. citizen, was convicted of shooting the three victims from inside his car while they were waiting at a bus stop at the Tapuah junction in the northern West Bank. and later According to his indictment Shalabi fired from close range and stopped shooting when his gun malfunctioned and fled the scene. That's not SIGCOV, but notice carefully that "According to his indictment". The news source is reporting court documents. This is a primary source for this detail also. News reporting is a primary source, and does not count towards notability, and that is Wikipedia policy. N
The Euronews article is a news report of the demolition of his house. Again, this is reporting events, and adds reported detail of the background of the events. This is a primary source. Again, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. N
The algemeiner: This is a news report of criticism of the demolition of Shalabi's home. It contains only this background on the topic of the article: Of course what Hamas lobbyist @RashidaTlaib omits to mention is fact that this home belonged to a Palestinian terrorist who murdered a Jewish Israeli man. That is not SIGCOV, and is a quotation in response to the criticism. It, too, is primary sourcing. Note that what we don't have is a source that has synthesised material here. We don't have an article that has examined the whole matter, and draw together reporting, and chosen to include this criticism, and examined its effects. Instead we have a news report that we have decided to include in the article. The synthesis is ours. Again, this is a discursive primary source, and does not count towards notability. N

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're looking at Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS as the best or only place to determine what a secondary source. Above you rejected my argument as "meta", but have you looked at Wikipedia:SECONDARY which defines what a secondary source is.

It only requires a few things:

At least one step removed from an event
Contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas

And here's my understanding of the word "synthesis" in this context:

Combining information from multiple sources to create a new, cohesive understanding or argument

Do you have a different understanding of the word?

And is there any disagreement with the idea that the Haaretz journalist probably talked to multiple people and maybe reviewed multiple documents to put together their news report? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARYNEWS links you to the policy page. Now look on WP:SECONDARY, scroll up a couple of paragraphs, and read note d under WP:PRIMARY. These are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restricting participation to EC editors per WP:PIA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, I noticed another editor saying that wikipedia is not news, and though that is true, that is not what this is about. A review of the sources in both English as well as Hebrew demonstrates clear notability per WP:GNG for this article to be kept. The article also references an event from 2021. This was and is a notable event that meets our standards for encyclopedic mention. Keep all around. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bob Drobbs comments and further inquiry, my Strong Keep moves to Even stronger Keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi lijhgtn. You may only have one highlighted !vote per AfD. I am curious though: your !vote above was made at 15:26 yesterday, but you had !voted on a previous AfD just 2 minutes earlier, at 15:24. Did you do your WP:BEFORE review of the sourcing at some other time? Would you be willing to post up your source review? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I bolded text after the first and only !vote. Will it somehow count as a second one? If so, that was not my intention, I was simply bolding the second mention of "Strong Keep" and "Even Stronger Keep" for emphasis. I thought only your first bolded !vote was "counted" (and yes I know they are not simply votes and therefore it is not simply a matter of which "side" has the highest number of !votes on their side but rather which arguments are most based in policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, if I did something wrong, please ping me and let me know so that I come back to this thread and I will correct it. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the additional bolding. It keeps things clearer for the closer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This did not receive any – let alone significant! – secondary source coverage over time and warrants deletion for that reason. (WP:NOTNEWS / WP:SIGCOV) Already covered in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2021, besides. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above. Can you please clarify what your understanding of a secondary source is?

Because it appears that between coverage of this shooting and coverage of the perpetrator/aftermath dozens if not hundreds of secondary sources gave significant coverage to this story. And to clarify my use of the word "significant" these weren't just passing mentions, these were are all news articles written specifically about the incident or things directly related to it's aftermath (manhunt, trial, home demolition) which IMO should be included in the scope of this article.

As just one example, of countless examples, here is a secondary source giving coverage of the attack:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/student-shot-in-west-bank-drive-by-shooting-dies-of-injuries/ Bob drobbs (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of Israel article is a news report of the death of Yehuda Guetta. The article is news reporting throughout. As above, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Such reports are primary sources occasioned by the event (this one is occasioned by the death of the victim). These are not secondary sources demonstrating notability nor WP:LASTING effect. N Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Wikipedia:Secondary source seems like a better, and probably the definitive place, to try to get an understanding of what a secondary source is. Bob drobbs (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, scroll up a couple of paragraphs on that page and carefully read note d regarding what are primary sources. Per policy, these are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did scroll up. it seems 100% clear that Times of Israel (and countless other sources) aren't a primary sources based on this definition:
"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event..."

But there's also this qualification:
"For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources..."

I wasn't sure, so I had to look up how wikipedia defines "breaking news":
"Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news

So it seems very clear that the only standard here is to treat news stories within 24 hours of an event with a large degree of skepticism, not that every single news article written within 6-12 months of an event is a primary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just wikilawyering. Have another read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep referring to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, but that page is just an opinion essay written by some editors:
"This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community'"'

By comparison, WP:SECONDARY is policy. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an explanatory essay explaining Wikipedia policy, and which, like all explanatory essays, has a higher level of consensus than someone trying to assert that a news source is only primary if it is within 24 hours of an event. It also links quite clearly to the policy. News reports are primary sources. It is not just Wikipedia saying so.
Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.^[1]^: 69.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, WP:SECONDARY is very clear: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The ToI article provided does none of these things. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary coverage, and yes news reports are primary sources: [5] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Fly List Kids

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

Does not pass WP:NORG. Mentioned in passing in some articles but no sigcov outside of non-independent and opinion sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Canada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, doesn't pass WP:NORG. Media is mostly passing mentions or primary sources. XwycP3 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : not notable Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to dispute the claims by the nominator. There definitely exists SIGCOV, but I think it's less clear whether this should kept. I see coverage starting around 2016-2017, such as these video segments: [6][7]. CBC in 2019 reported that NFLK "represents dozens of families across Canada who have been affected by the list and pushing for change", even after the House passed Bill C-59; also in 2019 there were articles from The Globe and Mail [8] and Huffington Post [9], and a CityNews video segment [10]. In 2020 CTV News reported that members of the group were "invited to test federal remedy" to the issue; that was also covered by Global News [11]. This was a cursory search but I think there's a case to be made because of the continued advocacy by the group prior to the federal government's action in 2020. Bridget (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Before I can close, I need to ask User:Bridget, are you arguing for a Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Yes, thank you for checking. I'll change to a keep. I'm concerned that all the other comments are simply asserting that it's "not notable" or "doesn't pass WP:NORG" without much elaboration. Bridget (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads somewhat like promotional content and isn't written well. It also doesn't pass WP:NORG. ^Wiinter_U 04:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. That page title sounds like something a really bored vandal would create. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bridget. Appears to have SIGCOV and deletion is not cleanup. मल्ल (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are a mixture of primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all and coverage about the general issue of kids wrongly name-matching the No Fly List — what isn't being shown is any significant coverage which has this organization as its subject. To be fair, this is different enough from the version that was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Fly List Kids Legislation (Canada) that I can't recommend immediate speedy as a recreation of previously deleted content, but this version isn't making a stronger case that this organization would pass WP:NORG at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 4 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.

Murder of Isla Bell

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT. Sources are all thing happened with little commentary, making them WP:PRIMARYNEWS PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject isn't notable, very little coverage, Wikipedia:Lasting, and several other reasons previously listed. ^Wiinter_U 01:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I do not know what the moderators, other editors would like. Australia is different to the US/UK - we do not have talk shows that discuss events. We have the news bulletins on television/radio and the newspapers. This is an on-going case and the comments section of any article about this (when opened) shows how outraged Australians are over this.

A young woman was taken, murdered, then her body dumped - Wikipedia has articles about a lot less. The trial, details of this are still yet to come; anticipating it to be a big trial with lots of information/evidence etc to be released (because we are in pre-trial stage so not everything is released - that would destroy the prosecutors case) someone took the initiative to start a page and start compiling the information and what because the Made for TV Movie isn't already being developed it's not enough for editors to warrant a page.

For the record there are other things happening in Australia as well; the Brisbane Olympic Games finally announced what they are doing, we had the Federal Budget handed down, we have an impending Election which is all taking up news time but because this isn't top story every night "WELP The world doesn't need to know about another woman killed by a man"? It's already a growing pandemic and you want to be part of hiding the numbers and sweeping stories about it under the rug?

Let's not forget the precedent you are setting here now... any crime that happens in the world NOTHING is allowed to be posted here until the court case is finalised and ALL evidence is available. NOTED! Thepeoplesdude (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)— Thepeoplesdude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please read it WP:NEVENT. This wouldn't be notable if it had happened in America either. There are a lot of murders. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources I found are from November 2024. No lasting impact or coverage. Fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an on-going case with numerous court cases to play out. There were articles posted today and there is outrage in Australia about this. Did you bother to attempt to search before deciding a case you have never heard of isn't worthy? Why because it's Australian? Do we have to tear buildings down or ensure it is the only thing anyone in the country can think about for it to be worthy of a wikipedia article.

Thought this of all places would be one you would need to fact check or resource check... guess not! Just list things for deletion we don't like... wait here I'll go get a list of pages I don't like and we can list them for deletion too. Thepeoplesdude (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:EVENT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:LASTING. I suggest you get more experience editing other articles and contributing to other AfDs to understand how deletion works. Not everything reported in the media gets an article. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:EVENT in my opinion, well cited event that may have more coverage in the future. Brenae wafato (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the reasons for nomination. Several articles discussed the event in the context of demonstrations opposing violence against women. It's more than just thing happened. I was able to find coverage in both Australian and UK sources, some of it from October 2024 and now March 2025. The multi-country scope and significant national coverage in Australia suggests notability to me as this is not an event just isolated to local news. I have added updates to the article with additional sources. A quick google news search turns up articles from October 2024 and March 2025, and please do due diligence commenting in favor of keep or delete. Coverage will likely continue as the full trial begins and I don't think the duration of coverage will be an issue long-term.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is borderline for me. Hassett (2024) looks like it gives coverage of the event as a notable example as opposed to news coverage. Roulston (2024) might indicate this as well, but it's a stretch. If there's a slightly more clear cut example of using this as a WP:CASESTUDY or becoming a go-to example in the literature, then it would be a definite keep. I'm not interested in coverage that might exist some day in the future (that's a fancy way of saying it doesn't exist), or continued breaking news coverage as it comes out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is still being used as an example of violence against women in Australia during coverage of anti-violence rallies in a newspaper of record: [12]. Uncertain if that will nudge minds in one way or another (I've added the reference to the article). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. The claim that all coverage in the sources is from November 2024 is false as a review of the article clearly shows. But please, no conspiracy theories, these type of crime articles regularly appear in AFD discussions and is not influenced by the location of the crime, the outcome is determined the coverage of the incident by reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's an ongoing criminal court case. I'm not Australian but I suspect that there are similar regular reporting restrictions on legacy media during active criminal litigation as in the UK. Nothing we do here should impede the operation of a fair trial IMO, and there's no overwhelming reason why we need to write this story until all the court time is completed. JMWt (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a reason to delete articles on wikipedia? Unless the information in the article is original research, all of the information is from third parties. Wikipedia isn't censored WP:UNCENSORED, and I'm not sure how this article would impede a fair trial. Is the argument here to delete any article as soon as there are related court cases? Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well I don't want to try getting outside of my lane in terms of detailed knowledge about media law however the situation relating to reporting current legal cases in the UK (and likely Australia and other countries with similar legal systems) is different to America. Here, judges tell jurors that they should disregard anything they hear or read outside of the courtroom and the media can be in breach of the law - even for repeating "common knowledge" facts about the case whilst a trial is going on. It isn't about censorship, it's about respect for the legal system as it works in different jurisdictions.

As to your other point, I believe Wikipedia should be following the media rules of jurisdictions like other media, which may well involve removing pages from view if they include information that would not be published in other media during a criminal trial.

In this particular case I think that's getting into the weeds as it looks like there may only be a fairly short delay until the court case starts and hopefully concludes anyway. So there would likely be more material to write a better page in a few months anyhow. JMWt (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That Wikipedia should refrain from publishing material that wouldn't be published in any particular territory or country's media is an extreme minority view that goes against WP:NOTCENSORED. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a deletion argument. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this has a fair amount of coverage, and now has 17 sources some of which are news stories I have added. The case is quite infamous as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having fair amount of coverage doesn't override WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please re-review the article in light of the new sources that have been added to the content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a current event (the trial), I'd say it's almost TOOSOON. This needs to happen and others to analyze it before we decide if it's notable. If the media is still talking about it in a year, we can revisit. I guess we could draft, but it would likely hang around and get deleted anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Proposed deletions

Deletion Review

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

[1]