Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime

< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tbhotch (talk | contribs) at 21:15, 7 January 2025 (Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2011 Mexican drug gang attack Twitter hoax.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:15, 7 January 2025 by Tbhotch (talk | contribs) (Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2011 Mexican drug gang attack Twitter hoax.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Points of interest related to Crime on Misplaced Pages:
Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment


Deletion Sorting Project
(talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

Deletion Sorting
Project

AfD: Today, Yesterday

Delsort scripts

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 {{Misplaced Pages: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 {{Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography.

Crime

2011 Mexican drug gang attack Twitter hoax

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

This is a permastub incident that took place 13 years ago. Unlike what was said at the previous AFD, it had no lasting consequences. This article is rarely visited as it is linked to nowhere since it was a minor incident. (CC) Tbhotch 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Internet, and Mexico. (CC) Tbhotch 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Disregarding all news attention, received quite a bit of academic attention for its legal considerations and relation to drug trade/ internet usage. , for a random selection. Quite a bit more if I looked harder. That it is a stub is of no consideration for notability, as stubs are not against the rules. Could very well be linked to several pages if expanded. Seems quite the unique incident and much could be written on its background/impacts/events from these sources, so it does pass WP:NEVENT. Very clearly not a permastub, as it can be expanded. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

New York Post Presents: Luigi Mangione Monster or Martyr?

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

Unable to find any coverage in non-WP:PRIMARY sources. मल्ल (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Crime, and New York. मल्ल (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete By design you're not going to find anything but the NYP, Fox or Tubi sources; just another WP:MILL 'ripped from the headlines' true crime doc suffering a severe case of WP:RECENT that would be just as deleted if it was on Lifetime or Investigation Discovery. Nate • (chatter) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Don't forget the Decider which is also owned by NYP, and covering the subject. CNC (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Found no significant coverage, there is only NYP and their online mouthpiece Decider. If there are further sources in the coming days, feel free to ping me, but I don't expect much as it's been a few days since lunch. CNC (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. The only coverage I can find are the two promotional articles already mentioned, which do not demonstrate significant coverage and are not independent. With that level of coverage, this documentary wouldn't warrant a mention on the main Luigi Mangione article, let alone an article all for itself. Further coverage may be forthcoming, given that the documentary only released a few days ago, but even then it seems unlikely to receive enough courage to warrant an independent article. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Despite being a classic movie in terms of the intense number of years um i mean days it took to create this work of art, it does not seem to be notable. I daily ponder whether he was a monster or martyr or perhaps the answer is more nuanced than even this pinnacle of human creation presented by a journalistic institution founded by Alexander Hamilton who no doubt probably predicted its creation in the Federalist Papers can convey. Sadly, delete, along with Manhunt: Luigi Mangione and the CEO Murder - A Special Edition of 20/20.--Milowent • 17:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Murder of Fanny Hardwick

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. All source is breaking news or trial stuff, no retrospection, after the execution it was seemingly never discussed again. Interestingly, not a case of recentism (all sourcing is from 1901). There is one very brief mention in an academic article from this year in an article about Australian executions, but otherwise nothing. If we had some article like "list of people executed by Australia" I would suggest a redirect to that, but we do not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to List of people legally executed in Queensland. There are a couple of sources from after 1901, but agree that it's not enough to meet WP:NEVENT. MCE89 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@MCE89 For purposes of consensus building I agree with redirect (I would have suggested it if I knew that page existed...)

Out of curiosity what are the other post-1901 sources? Some stuff on Trove? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah nothing much, just a couple of articles from 1902 and 1904 that strike me as basically that era's equivalent of sensationalised true crime stories. Nothing to suggest any real notability, and they're close enough to the murder that they don't really suggest any lasting coverage. MCE89 (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge to the article mentioned above in addition the redirect. Or at least an inclusion of the references.Topic does not seem to have lasting importance. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hauptmann's Ladder

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

I found one alright article on this and nothing else. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: This was all I could find , which isn't enough. The one source used in the article now is fine, but we need more to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: does not meet WP:NBOOK. I found as well, but I think it's WP:UGC. Although the book was published by a university press, the author is a private practice lawyer, which may explain why it wasn't reviewed academically. Jfire (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jfire I don’t think Reader’s Favorite is UGC, but I believe it is paid, which is also not usable. Just for reference PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Miss X (decedent)

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

Fails WP:GNG, only one source helpful for notability, the rest are non RS. An outside search found no more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: There is no sourcing about Miss X, which is a rather hard name to search for... She might have been identified, which is fine, but simply another non-notable missing person. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Delaware. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Court-martial of Federico Merida

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT, no coverage outside of the immediate period. There is a one sentence mention in 10.1080/01436597.2010.518790, and a few masters theses (not RS) (mostly over him using the gay panic defense), which is not enough. There is a single source that contributes to notability, , which has about two pages but I am unsure if this is enough. If kept it should be moved to Murder of Falah Zaggam (what the only secondary source calls it). PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, and Iraq. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This phd thesis allegedly says something, but IDK if it is sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Manhunt for Theodoros Theofanous

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

The manhunt is definitely not notable per WP:NEVENT. Searching for names in Greek, the 2011 murder he was convicted for might be, but while there are sources I'm not sure they're enough to pass NEVENT. Should either be deleted, or if that murder is found to be notable moved to that, but I have my doubts it is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Cyprus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The murderer escaped and was recaptured without very much fuss. Whoopee. Why, oh why, should there be an article about a manhunt when the escapee himself doesn't have one? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
@Clarityfiend Well, what I'm asking here is, is he notable? He's a Cypriot and our coverage of that place is not great. That case might be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think he is. The triple murder is sad, but nothing special in these times. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, nothing's special. Depends on how it got covered. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Police. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Tyson Billings

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

Fails WP:NCRIMINAL. Minor figure in the convoy protests. No longer in prison, not a public figure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Canada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Some coverage in the CBC is all I can find, calling him "notable" but he was a minor figure in the overall scheme of things, I don't think we have criminal notability. 6 months probation isn't a notable sentence, was a non-notable individual before this event and appears to have faded away after jail. Oaktree b (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Gaudreau brothers cycling incident

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Johnny Gaudreau#Death. The Kip 06:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey, Sportspeople, Crime, and New Jersey. The Kip 06:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom, the Johnny Gaudreau article already covers the incident in enough detail, no need for a stand alone article. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Johnny Gaudreau#Death per nom. The main article has more detail than this one Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Johnny Gaudreau#Death: Per nom, there is no reason for a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Let'srun (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to Johnny Gaudreau#Death per nom. Definitely no need to provide an article that has fewer details than the main. Conyo14 (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Nejaru (Mother & daughter/son) Murder Case

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

Aside from the abhorrently formatted title, I was unable to find anything that indicates this passes WP:NEVENT. All sources I could find are breaking news, trial updates and low quality, though there could be more in non-English languages. If kept (I could very well be missing sources, Indian news never shows up in search for me) the common title is something like ""Udupi quadruple murder" and it should be moved to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Karnataka. Spiderone 15:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Murder of Olive Duck

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. All source is breaking news or trial stuff, no retrospection, once the trial was over it was seemingly never discussed again. Interestingly, not a case of recentism (all sourcing is from 1925) PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure I understand what you are expecting for this article. This murder happened a century ago. Her father was convicted of her murder. Are you looking for an Aftermath section at the bottom? Can you link a similar article that is written the way you think this should be? — Maile (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
@Maile66 I am expecting it to not exist. Not every news item should get a page, and this does not meet NEVENT or GNG (all sourcing is WP:PRIMARYNEWS). PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Appears to be a routine event, even if it was 100 yrs ago. Guy does bad thing, goes to trial, gets jailed. Like the other two murders discussed in the final paragraph, it got media attention, so was sensationalized. Nothing notable about the media hyping up a story to sell papers. Oaktree b (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:EVENT. We don't create articles for every murder. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete A search on Trove reveals lots of local coverage from 1925 but nothing after that and nothing with any real depth. Seems to fail WP:NEVENT. For it to be notable, I would expect to see some kind of WP:LASTING coverage published more than a couple of months after the murder, and some coverage that goes beyond the routine details of the trial. For instance, the Gun Alley Murder is a somewhat similar Australian murder case from the same period, and its sources very clearly demonstrate its notability by comparison. MCE89 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Death of Won Jang

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, not in depth coverage or over a sustained amount of time. The only news since it happened was some people getting charged. ATD redirect to List of hazing deaths in the United States#2020s, where it is included (and, note, most of those deaths seem covered to the same degree as this and do not have articles) PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Connecticut. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
redirect: is fine, not every death is notable. This was sadly just another hazing that went wrong, not the first or the last such event. Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: This article has ample sources that provide significant coverage. The most recent article is in The New York Times, providing significant coverage on a national level. This event was also covered in USA Today and The Guardian and People, again providing significant coverage in the US and internationally. Furthermore, this death just happened last year. It is premature to say that there is no ongoing coverage, as there has been a steady number of articles and coverage throughout 2024. I searched Newspapers.com and found 58 hits in 2024, in newspapers across the country. These articles were published in July, August, September, and November. That is coverage in four of the six months since the event happened. That seems like ongoing coverage to me. Rublamb (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Such early coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. For a notable case, the coverage might drop off in the interim, but there would be something, or a piece that analyzed it in relation to a broader topic. This does not have that. All the later coverage is press releases/basic announcements which do not count. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is another recent article in the Washington Post. I don't think you can call this a press release article. This is another article in People, from July 2024, meaning it was covered in this national magazine two times, both reporting and following up on the death. WP:EVENTCRIT says that "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". This event had widespread national and international coverage. Rublamb (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The first is a routine legal announcement that does not contribute to event notability. The second is from the day or so after it happened, also not very helpful. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

A byline article in a newspaper with a wide circulation does indeed count toward notability; this article is signficantly different from the short announcement in, for example, USA Today. People covered the death twice, showing ongoing coverage at a national level. Rublamb (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn’t always, depending on the type of coverage and how they are covering it. Legal updates are almost never helpful for notability and coverage form the day after something happened cannot demonstrate sustained. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

2024 Manchester Airport police incident

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

Doubtful that this passes NEVENT. All coverage is along the lines of this thing happened, with little depth, and mostly a flash in the pan type story. ATD redirect to Greater Manchester Police, since it's already mentioned there PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and England. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect: Doesn't seem to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (events). The event's already covered in Greater Manchester Police so recommend redirecting there. XwycP3 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Murder of Andreen McDonald

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. All coverage is very local, not in depth or analytical, and not over a sustained period of time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Texas. Spiderone 14:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: The article meets Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines because the subject has been covered by multiple independent, reliable, and non-local sources. While some may argue that the coverage is predominantly local, this claim does not fully reflect the range and scope of the sources cited,Atlanta Black Star,CBS News,Express News,The U.S. Sun and Fox News are definately not local. Although local outlets may have initially reported on the subject, subsequent coverage by nationally and internationally recognized media outlets suggests that the topic has broader significance. This aligns with Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines, which prioritize significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Afrowriter talk 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The U.S. Sun is unreliable, CBS News has local branches (which is what the article is citing), Fox News only covered the case when it was a breaking news item in 2019 which does not help notability. Atlanta Black Star is better but still specialized (and further only one source, and the content isn't great to overc ome that), still almost entirely local. Per WP:NEVENT (which is meant to balance the fact that a lot of news is actually considered a WP:PRIMARY source, not counted for notability, without making it wholly unusable), just because something was reported as happening does not make it notable. It doesn't have to have all the aspects that indicate notability for NEVENT, but this is literally none. Further, there isn't enough depth of coverage to compensate for it. There is little to say. All the sources are when the event happened or the trial. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Does not have any lasting notability, barely even got coverage when it happened. Local news coverage, then they've moved on. Even the lawsuit afterwards isn't terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Murder of Kiaya Campbell

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Coverage is entirely "thing occurred", with no analysis of how/why/what this means. The sourcing is very local and generally very poor, and not over a long period of time. After the perp was sentenced, pretty much nothing. YouTube videos from non RS do not help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Colorado. Spiderone 14:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. This page should be gone. Horrible sources. 160.69.1.132 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Death of Elianne Andam

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, in that the coverage is largely routine and not in depth, or sustained. My prod was rejected because it was "potentially controversial" (as much as any prod ever is). There isn't anything to say besides it happened - no in depth background on why this happened, or what it means, and all coverage is very local. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. Spiderone 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The trial has only started recently. Also, there has been significant coverage already. --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, and so this presents BLPCRIME issues. Just because something goes to trial or makes the news does not make it notable, since those kinds of news sources are WP:PRIMARY and do not count for notability (unlike reflective or analytical ones). It may be significant, but is not secondary. Please read WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
There has been sustained and in-depth coverage on the BBC News website, among other, more local news outlets. So I find your above statements not entirely fitting. --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
That is a recounting of a trial - neither sustained nor in depth. Of course it will get covered when it goes to trial, as every publicized crime does. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
That's not true. The stabbing has received wide coverage by the BBC (and other national news outlets) since 2023. How about we wait for other opinions? --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
If true (it is not “wide coverage” by any means) that is not sufficient for event notability - the relevant guideline here is WP:NEVENT, which this does not pass. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: One of 20 people getting stabbed isn't notable... Could be named in a list about the crime spree, if that's deemed to be notable. We don't need an article for every person that is the victim of a crime, everywhere on the planet. This is not more notable than the other 19 victims, nor any of the other hundreds of such events that happen daily on the planet. Oaktree b (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Moliere Dimanche

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche

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

This is a copy of Draft:Moe Dimanche which the creator of both articles, User:NovembersHeartbeat, submitted to Articles for Creation back in September. This user has now made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, to bypass the AfC process, and redirected Moe Dimanche to lead back to this article. I have suspicions about WP:COI that I have expressed on NovembersHeartbeat's talk page (Dimanche is running to be Governor of Florida, which provides a clear motivation). NovembersHeartbeat also created Dimanche v. Brown for a legal case Dimanche was prominent within, and I am now also considering this for deletion. I would like some external advice on whether any of these articles pass WP:GNG as I am not well versed on American legal stuff like this. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement: My contributions to Misplaced Pages have been neutral, informative, and edited by Admins. I like editing on Misplaced Pages because I like spreading knowledge. My contributions include the Federal Magistrates Act, the JUDGES Act, and I'm currently putting together a page on the concept of Unsettled Law. These are topics that serve public interest and make people wiser, and why people rely on wikipedia more than any other source of enlightenment. This user SpiralWidget on the other hand has had his pages deleted because he abandoned them for 6 months. I take the spread of knowledge seriously, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Redirects and Related Articles: The user SpiralWidget says he has conflict of interest concerns, which were addressed when he first started editing the page Moe Dimanche. I think his primary reason for nominating the article for deletion is because it is a duplicate page. However, the wikipedia deletion policy specifically says

"If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand."

But SpiralWidget moved the redirect page anyway because he wanted a formal discussion. The redirect Moe Dimanche was created to aid navigation for users searching under this common nickname. As for Dimanche v. Brown, it is a separate topic with its own independent notability, as demonstrated by coverage in legal publications and its significance in state-level jurisprudence. These articles serve distinct purposes and are appropriately created. 2. Conflict of Interest: I have no personal or professional connection to Moliere Dimanche. The article was written to document a notable public figure in compliance with Misplaced Pages’s WP:COI and WP:NPOV guidelines. This was already explained to SpiralWidget, even though I do not owe him an explanation. I came across Mr. Dimanche's YouTube videos after a judge in my city reopened a death investigation into a death of an inmate at a local prison. The only videos I could find on that inmate were done by Mr. Dimanche's Youtube channel and I learned more about him and asked why there wasn't a wikipedia page about him. So I decided to do it, as I began to follow what was going on with him. I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Misplaced Pages's policies. I hope my contributions to Misplaced Pages demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Crime, Law, Haiti, United States of America, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This wall of text isn't going to advance your case. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism without evidence. Cutlass 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Marginally Keep While I share suspicions that this is self-promotion by the primary contributor or meatpuppetry by the subject, I find that this does meet the general criteria for inclusion. Though not all the detail is necessary, the case cited does lend credence to the idea that the case and the subject of the case is notable enough; the precedent set is not nontrivial. Given the numerous local sources (admittedly probably pushing their own agenda), I think it marginally meets the threshold for inclusion. I would strongly advise User:NovembersHeartbeat to back off for a few days and likewise recant/strike his remarks about "vandalism". This is not "your" article. It is open to anyone to edit and improve within our guidelines. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Marginal keep When I first came across this draft in AfC, I refrained from reviewing as the notability seemed marginal–it could've gone both ways. However, I do feel that there are some significant coverage of him as an artist, but this article needs to be ridden of fluff and promotion. I also found this book by Nicole R. Fleetwood that discusses his art in detail. Ca 02:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Dimanche v. Brown

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

Non-notable, WP:ROTM legal case that is principally created to add credence to Moliere Dimanche (see also: WP:Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche and User talk:NovembersHeartbeat)Spiralwidget (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Moliere Dimanche

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement:

1. Vandalism: This user Spiralwidget has repeatedly vandalized this topic. In his nomination for deletion of the page for Moe Dimanche he states that Dimanche is "prominent" in the case law, and then states that he doesn't know much about "American legal stuff", but projects himself as an expert on legal case notability here. This is vandalism, and in American jurisprudence, Dimanche v. Brown has been cited in 178 new opinions be United States judges. That means this case law helped our highest courts establish new case law, and will continue to do so forever. Virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, and the 178 citations is just from judges rendering opinions. That doesn't count the many more times litigants have used the citation to protect there positions in our district courts, our appellate courts, and in the Supreme Court of the United States. This is an actual law, and has been one since 2015.

I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Misplaced Pages's policies. I hope my contributions to Misplaced Pages demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NovembersHeartbeat (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, can you provide a list of some of them? Ca 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Police, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass 18:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete, but I am happy to be proven wrong. I am not well-versed in the laws, so it is possible that I am missing some major source that I could look for coverage. However, a search on Google Scholar, Google, Google News, and Google Books did not return any usable source(that is, reliable and independent). Currently, this article has an WP:original research problem since the topic has zero secondary analysis by reliable sources. This article is also heavily WP:REFBOMBed with primary documents of the lawsuit. Ca 01:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I also feel like my essay WP:NPOV deletion applies here, since lawsuits are naturally a contentious topic. Ca 01:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment The use of a level-3 fake header (same as the real header of the entire AfD) is confusing. Reduced to level 4. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Christopher Hyde

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

Article subject is notable only for a single event, and does not meet the criteria set out in WP:NCRIMINAL. Bastun 11:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Alabama, and Florida. Spiderone 12:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Killing three people during a robbery isn't notable, being on death row neither. Coverage is strictly news items of his various incidents. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Per nom and the reason NCRIMINAL exists; this man simply is not notable and should not have the glory of their own page. Nate • (chatter) 17:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't define it as glory, especially here. I would say having a page is a negative in most cases. Sure there are some crimes that may be a consideration with, but this is clearly not one of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep for now: I created this article thinking it would be notable for a few reasons, 1. His crimes occurred in 2 states, one of which was an attempted murder, had that victim died, he could have had 4 victims killed in separate incidents, some might say that's a serial killer or in this case an "attempted serial killer" 2. case was covered by various news outlets, the Associated Press being the big one as that a national one, also news agencies outside Alabama covered it (Edwardsville Intelligencer: Illinois and Cape Cod Times: Massachusetts) 3. The random location of the crime, I don't recall there being many multiple slayings at Funereal Homes, that stood out to me and I thought that was unique for a triple homicide case. The circumstances of the case overall seemed very unusual. While it may be a stub, a stub can still be notable. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete since crime fails WP:NEVENT. Coverage is not in depth enough or over a long enough period of time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per @YatesTucker00090

Taksoh17 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. He does not meet the requirements of WP:CRIMINAL and the crime itself was not a notable WP:NEVENT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Ghazi Shahzad

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL since he never won an election, nor does he satisfy WP:GNG, the Anadolu source within the article describes his as "a little-known politician." Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Crime, Law, Politics, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG criteria (WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL. Limited WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. This article is supposed to be WP:BLP. Note: Ghazi Shahzad is a little-known politician ... which question the notability of the article. QEnigma talk 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment. This AfD occurs after User:SheriffIsInTown blanked the (sourced) article and then tried to delete it under WP:BLPPROD claiming it was unsourced. The claim of being a "little-known politician" was also added by SheriffIsInTown just prior to initiating this AfD. Perhaps the result should be a delete but the discussion should not be based on SheriffIsInTown's prejudicial edits. See for the article as it was before SheriffIsInTown started editing to make it worse and then use its badness as an excuse for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@David Eppstein Since when removing unsourced content from a BLP content considered "making it worse"? Anadolu source describes the individual as "a little known politician", would you prefer to keep the version which had a lot of unsourced content and rest a total misrepresentation of the sources. I blanked the article because it was a total WP:BLPVIO, I tried to PROD because I wanted to save every one a hassle of an AfD but you saw it as bad faith, really? Also, I have no issue if you want to take time to improve the article and properly source it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Blanking a sourced article and then saying that because you blanked the sources it should be deleted for having no sources: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? Editing the first sentence of the article to directly say that the subject is non-notable, and then using that statement of non-notability as the basis for a deletion discussion: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? As I said, perhaps the article should be deleted. But your actions attempting to get it deleted make it appear that you have predetermined to delete it and are trying any way you can to ram it through, rather than allowing the community to make a fair decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@David Eppstein I should have adjusted the content according to the sources which I did after you removed the PROD tag, I made a mistake to blank it, I thought it was a good idea to do as the lede as well was not sourced and I saw it as a WP:BLPVIO, the presence of the sources within article does not mean that content is actually according to those sources but anyway I will shut up and allow the community to make a decision. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment In English alone there seems to have been more than passing mentions of Shahzad since 2023: described as the head of Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir, widespread coverage of his gaol break in June 2024 , , , coverage of attempts to recapture him in November 2024. He was also a candidate in the 2021 Azad Kashmir legislative elections (which by itself is not an indicator of notability, yes, yes), but is likely to mean there's some local coverage of him in Urdu or Kashmiri. Appears to me there should be a merge/redirect AtD here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge into Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Procedural keep or Selectively merge and redirect from the last good version of this article. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir using sourced information from the existing article also drawing on the sources mentioned by Goldsztajn. Suggest that {{R with possibilities}} should be used for the redirect as it seems that more sources might come to light so as to make the subject notable in their own right. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Gregory J. Blotnick

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

It's unclear to me why this man's fraud conviction makes him notable. There were many people who committed PPP fraud and while large, his is not the largest or most well reported. I see a smattering of reporting, of the routine kind of reporting you usually see that is rewritten SEC or DOJ press releases.

Furthermore, I don't see how he is notable for his finance activities prior to his conviction.

This article seems to promote the man in a strange kind of way. I am concerned about the potential COI nature of this articles creation as well, because the Wikidata item for this page/person, Gregory Blotnick (Q131440997) is being actively edited by wikidata:User:Gregory J. Blotnick so shortly after creation. William Graham 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and Finance. William Graham 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - I wish that fraud and misprision, my two least favorite crimes, were crimes that would automatically make a perpetrator notable, but that has not been consensus since 2007. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep I think it can be edited to remove some sources and info but after seeing sources such as, The Palm Beach Post, Business Insider, www.justice.gov, Dealbreaker, which are already cited on Misplaced Pages for multiple notable entities, the page can be kept. It also passes general criteria of notability as per WP:GNG. I can help editing. NatalieTT (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep article gained full notoriety, as it is an important case with a properly licensed work. It is not a template. It appears to comply with WP:GNG. so keep. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:BOLD strikeout as a suspected sockpuppet of Alon9393. Geschichte (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep There are articles about him in reliable sources like Bloomberg, Newsweek, Miami Herald, NJ and National Law Review.Kwftnlf (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep Meets notability guidelines. Firecat93 (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete. While his case is covered in reliable sources, they mostly seem to be somewhat routine, nothing to me that really stands out. Quite a few sources are out there reporting on it, but I'm not sure if the content is enough for a keep. Procyon117 (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: One count of wire fraud and one count of money laundering are minor crimes. Multiple counts on each would make more him more notable. He's not the FTX guy with multiple charges against him, this isn't Enron... Oaktree b (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
The amount of criminal charges someone gets has nothing to do with notability. There are people convicted on dozens of counts who aren't notable and people notable with one or two charges. Ynsfial (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Most of this so-called “notability” is really just sensationalized coverage of the individual’s criminal activity. I agree with the nominator and Oaktree b that this page should not remain on Misplaced Pages.50.39.138.50 (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: The subject's references include multiple reliable secondary sources such as The Palm Beach Post, Bloomberg, New York Post, and Business Insider. Additionally, the subject has been featured in Newsweek, Miami Herald, Daily Voice, and Mel Magazine. Aona1212 (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: He meets notability guidelines due to significant coverage in reliable sources, including Bloomberg, The Palm Beach Post, Business Insider, Miami Herald and other mainstream news sources. Blotnick’s $6.8 million PPP fraud case is one of the largest individual cases reported, making it noteworthy in the context of COVID pandemic related financial crimes. While the article might need some editing for neutrality and removal of unsourced content, his career and legal cases have received enough coverage for him to be considered notable. Moopaz (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. As the NPP reviewer on this article, I thought it marginally crossed the line of WP:CRIMINAL under the following criterion: The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. PPP fraud is a significant topic that has gathered a lot of media attention, and this is someone who was already in the news (even if not independently notable). The coverage also persisted beyond the immediate aftermath of his sentencing (see, for example, this piece in the National Law Review and in-depth coverage in the Miami Herald) in addition to the contemporaneous coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Crime Proposed deletions

Deletion Review

Categories: