Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


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

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

See also: Social science-related deletions.

Crime[edit]

2024 Mannheim stabbing[edit]

2024 Mannheim stabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing to indicate that this will generate significant lasting coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Germany. Skynxnex (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep
    1. The event has a lot of news coverage
    2. There is a clear perpetrator who was caught on camera
    3. There are multiple victims
    4. The police have released a report on the incident in its immediate aftermath Salfanto (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that this is only the first day of the event right? Salfanto (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is all the more reason why we should not have an article on it. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The attack has received widespread global attention and clear impact on the highest political levels in Germany for a politically motivated attack on notable Islam-critic Michael Stürzenberger. Clear indications that this will have significant lasting impact/coverage. See also Stabbing of Salman Rushdie and 2024 Wakeley church stabbing (bishop Mari Emmanuel) for similar recent attacks. Thismess (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Widespread coverage. Obvious keep. Thriley (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This nominator have a history of deletion nomination which fail to pass, its obvious that this guy have no idea about the deletion criteria Afif Brika1 (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you attacking the editor and not the nomination itself? I looked through his past nominations and they were all fine and consensus agreed with him/is agreeing with him. His AfD stats show 75%+ which is a fine number for AfD.
    As to the article itself, even though it may achieve notability in the future it has yet to. WP:TOOSOON applies here and we should not be creating these articles the minute these events occur. Thus I support the nomination in Delete (Or turning into a draft) until it is actually possible for notability to be ascertained. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not only agreeing with the editor above, but considering the past week of news regarding the surge of right-wing nationalism in Germany, this attack will surely stir something in the coming days/weeks.
Volkish Kurden (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clear case of WP:RAPID. Not even a day has passed since the event. The initial news coverage has not passed yet, and we're talking about lasting notability that can't really be proven until at least a few weeks later. The attack also involves notable activist and critic of Islam Michael Stürzenberger. Also considering the recent stabbing attacks in Australia (2024 Wakeley church stabbing and Bondi Junction stabbings) still in the news cycle and the current surge of right-wing nationalism in Germany, I think there will be signifiant news coverage in the next few days. 106.71.58.30 (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable people involved and the whole event was recorded which will of course circulate the internet for years to come, and therefore I think deserves a stand-alone article. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable violent event with a famous person involved, multiple injuries and one fatality. Killuminator (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article as it is a major event with where a known figure was attacked and one person was killed in the result of the attack. In my opinion this event is worth of having it's own wikipedia article Szymonexis (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
  1. when a politician is attacked, it is notable and important for history/archive/future reference. Compare with shooting of Slovak prime minister.
  2. it already has very significant coverage not only in Germany but internationally - every major newspaper in Sweden ran a story.
  3. this will become a major thing in right-wing circles as well as anti-immigration circles. That makes a Wikipedia-article and factual foundation even more important.

83.185.46.97 (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Plenty of national and international coverage, high-profile and public incident, multiple victims, etc. Johndavies837 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no doubt in that in my opinion Braganza (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of the keep votes readWP:NOTNEWS. Altho having read that the first victim is notable I'd amend my opinion to a merge to this unpleasant individual's article.TheLongTone (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
  1. I know nothing about the person in question, but noted that you seem to hold unfavorable views of him. Quote: "merge to this unpleasant individual's article".
  2. is it possible that your negative views of the person affect your judgement?
  3. you are very alone in thinking that this shouldn't be a standalone article.
83.185.46.97 (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion of the victim is neither here nor there. It does not affect my opinion that this is an event that will generate no lasting coverage. TheLongTone (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMerge to Michael Stürzenberger: This is a BLP violation. Low profile individuals have been named in this article as having committed crimes without any conviction being obtained. Per WP:BLPCRIME this shouldn't be happening. This needs to be sent to draft at the very least. However it would be better to merge any useful material to the Michael Stürzenberger article as they seem to be the only notable person in this incident. TarnishedPathtalk 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This event has caused a widespread media-echo, at least in the German-speaking countries. There's also an outrage, how this could happen. Yes, we are looking at a party/movement that is Islam-critical to Anti-Islamic, and attacker who seems to be from Afghanistan (so likely a Muslim), but who has lived in Germany for some time and is married to a German woman. It is likely that this event will stay in the heads of the people, and not be linked to one of the proponents of the party who organized the event where it happened. In that context, the focus should be to keep this article, and to amend what is missing from the German-language version, rather than deleting it.--Eptalon (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A multiple casualty incident by European norms which occurred amid heated sociocultural discussions in Germany and the continent, further exacerbated by the EP election. Borgenland (talk) Borgenland (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: 1 person is dead. Borgenland (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a repository of news stories. Any !vote suggesting that it's notable based solely on news coverage should be discarded. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As per WP:N(E), widespread coverage for an extended duration of time comprises notability. Newgrass 82 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several people were stabbed and it resulted in the death of a police officer, furthermore the event recieved world wide news coverage. Durraz0 (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Still meets WP:COVERAGE and has global coverage; meets WP:NEWSEVENT. --WikiLinuz (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep notorious victim, numerous sources, high level political reactions, possible influence on incoming elections. Diderot1 (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an assassination attempt against a notable German Islam-critic, the attack caused many casualties, and the attack has been commented on by dozens of politicians and received widespread (and also international) coverage. This is clearly a significant event and not just a normal news story. Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, I have read WP:NOTNEWS. Going to WP:N(E) from there, my judgement is that this event is definitely significant and interesting enough to keep. Newgrass 82 (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have read WP:NOTNEWS, too, and I think that this article is not an original reporting (it is quite well referenced), it is not a WP:ROUTINE event (the mass stabbing happened during a political rally coming just one week before hotly-contested European elections, in which immigration is an hot topic), for sure it is WP:NOTGOSSIP. P1221 (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an important event which has received lots of international coverage. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:304, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep and close. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain per most above; see WP:SNOWBALL and just get this over with.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 16:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't fault the nominator, but this article has grown a lot in the last few days as the coverage continues to expand and in my opinion it clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of True Crime[edit]

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

No actual reviews, has been tagged for notability since 2016 (it was accidentally placed on the talk page until yesterday, which I fixed). The one "review" contains no analytical content and is a straightforward non interpretive summary of the book (and is also an unarchived dead link). There's another similar summary in Reference & Research Book News. Oct2012, Vol. 27 Issue 5, p106-109, which says basically nothing about the book other than what it is about and that it is exists. Other than that, nothing. There's the Portland review in external links but that website has a note about "sponsored" reviews that makes me unsure of its independence. I don't think either of these sources is enough to build an article on. Redirect to author R. Barri Flowers? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also a Midwest Book Review review but that publication has, since 2011, also accepted paid reviews, so that's not useful here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freddrick Jackson[edit]

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

WP:PERP, WP:NOTNEWS - I can't see that there's likely to be unusual or lasting coverage regarding this murderer. BrigadierG (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NOTNEWS, killing four people isn't terribly notable in the US. Some coverage, but it's simply retelling the facts of a crime. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is notable due to his young age at the time of his crimes not the victim count as he has to be the youngest serial killer in Arkansas history. Startrain844 (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And NONE of the sources use the term "serial killer", nor can I find mention of this anywhere. I wonder if this is OR or some wishful thinking... Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is a serial killer because he committed the murders of three or more people, with the killings taking place over a significant period of time between them.[1][2]Startrain844 (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's original research; you can't create an article using that term when no one else has called him that. This effectively shames and degrades the individual, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of serial killers on Wikipedia had no lasting coverage on news. Startrain844 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to nominate any other articles that don't meet guidelines here. Again, they are serial killers as the media addresses them as such; this individual hasn't been called that in media. He's just another criminal, CRIME notability applies here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Murdered four people on different days over two years. Plenty of coverage. Meets WP:GNG. This effectively shames and degrades the individual, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. Yes, how dare we "shame and degrade" a convicted multiple murderer by calling him a serial killer (which is much, much worse than being a multiple murderer, apparently)! Poor little chap! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Bolkhovsky[edit]

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

should be considered for deletion due to insufficient notability or significance of the subject, as evidenced by a lack of substantial verifiable information and reliable sources to support their notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The sources on this are good. For a Russian crime topic, probably above average. As far as I can see, everything is cited. What? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Jonathan Lewis[edit]

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

Coverage is not sustained and significant enough to justify this article about the manslaughter of a teen. Zanahary (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I'm counting 10 reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV covering this event. I think some concerns regarding WP:NCRIME, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:NTEMP are warranted, but the young age and the alleged exceptional viciousness of the alleged perpetrators do make the event more than a run-of-the-mill killing. Ultimately, since there's WP:NODEADLINE, I think that at this juncture it makes sense to keep and circle back if it turns out that the notability was temporary.
Melmann 07:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Nevada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage past the event in November, no lasting notability. Sad event, appears to be only a news item at this point. NOTNEWS. Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Unusual amount of international coverage on this one - being picked up by the BBC. My answer comes down to WP:PERP's description of coverage of notable victims and the focus of coverage being on the event or the individual. I feel on balance, the event is covered as news much more than the victim's role is covered as a subject of personal interest. BrigadierG (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the incident has received nationwide coverage, I've found at least 15 reliable sources for the article. I'm in agreement with @Melmann, considering the young age of the victim and brutality of this crime this is beyond ordinary even for a murder. There's not so much coverage after November, but this will probably change in the future as the suspects are brought to justice and when they find the remaining perpetrator.
Cheera L (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. Murders and killing type articles go by WP:NEVENT, which this fails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? This case in particular has received significant coverage in a wide variety of news outlets and the media. It's a story having been reported and impacted all over the world, not just in the U.S. Cheera L (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The non-routine coverage was for about a week. With events, WP:SUSTAINED coverage is a consideration, which this fails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - User Melmanns rationale is the most convincing. The sourcing is within WP:SIGCOV at this time and several aspects of this this case already mentioned above makes this killing notable. I do believe WP:GNG applies as well. BabbaQ (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of formerly unidentified decedents[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of formerly unidentified decedents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fork of Unidentified decedent. Only page content, aside from list entries, is copied from Unidentified decedent. Would be better implemented as a category rather than WP:LISTCRUFT. jellyfish ✉ 18:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from previous nominations - it still fails WP:NLIST, per 4meter4's reasoning here. jellyfish ✉ 18:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per first AFD rationale. Also WP:SALT to prevent recreation. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This list is an original grouping that is never discussed collectively as a list in any sources; compiled through an original synthesis. This is essentially WP:LISTCRUFT. According to NAMUS's own statistics, law enforcement in the United States successfully identified 7,188 unidentified bodies in 2023 alone. That's just one nation. Being a formerly unidentified body is not unusual or encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. I too can see having a category but as group they have little to do with one another. Mangoe (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose any such list at the Unidentified decedents article. The very reasons for deletion are the same reasons why an in-article list are inappropriate. You could try a category but I suspect that too would end up at WP:CFD as a non-encyclopedic cross categorization.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you're right - category deleted at CfD. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Granted so much news stories of decade-old decedents being identified drowns them out, but I did find three sources that discuss them as a group as WP:NLIST requires in one of its scenarios ([1] [2] [3]) (or subsets at least: 1 is about unidentified indigenous people being identified with DNA; 2 is about forensic genealogy being used to identify murder victim bodies; and 3 is about unidentified 9/11 victims being identified). Overall, this passes WP:NLIST and is compliant with WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOR.
While I can't dispute NAMUS' statement of thousands being identified in the US annually, it doesn't account for how many of them are notable (in fact, there are only 42 American ones on the list, which composes all of history) or even had been unidentified for so long, and if anything, it (and to a lesser extent the vast amount of news sources) possibly makes them a culturally significant phenomenon, so the topic doesn't violate WP:NOTDIR#3. Further, the list entries do not violate WP:SYNTH because each entry only requires one source to confirm that they were once unidentified but are now so. Also, WP:NLIST only discusses being discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources as one of many reasons for counting, with consensus for cross-categorizations likes these being inconclusive, though my previous arguments lean towards keeping.
However, considering many of these were notable for being unidentified, we should at the least consider restricting the list to only those with articles and who went unidentified for some time (i.e. five years or a decade), and a merge might be considered given the list is a little bit small, but these are discussions for another time. ミラP@Miraclepine 21:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraclepine None of those sources are specifically about formerly unidentified decedents, or are necessarily reliable. All three are on related but different topics. The third source is targeted solely at 9/11 victims, which is a different much narrower topic. The second source is on forensic genealogy. It is also an opinion piece which means it can't be used as a source on wikipedia because it is unreliable. The first source is about DNA testing in the process of body identification, and while it mentions formerly identified people in passing, it does not address the subject directly and in detail, or discuss formerly unidentified people generally as a group. Additionally, the sources are entirely America-centric and do not look at the broader topic from a global perspective (and this is a global topic). None of them provide a list of formerly unidentified decedents, and none of them talk about formerly unidentified decedents from a big picture long term view. It's all a narrow viewpoint secondary to the main topic of each individual article, none of which primarily focus on formerly unidentified decedents. I'm still not seeing how this passes WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. How is this not a "repository of loosely associated topics". The only thing unifying these people is that they were at one time an unidentified body; which as statistics have demonstrated, is not unusual. Do they really belong in a list together? Is this even encyclopedic? I also want to point out that we already deleted several lists of this kind because they were rife with WP:Original research with numerous entries added from law enforcement and the NAMUs websites (without any secondary sources) and self published crime enthusiast blogs; many of them with speculations and factual errors. It's been a nightmare cleaning up after the type editing these lists attract.4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the analysis here. Reading over most of the articles in the list, I don't believe being unidentified is necessarily the thing that makes a lot of them notable - most often it's the murder or whatever led to their disappearance. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: Granted, they’re on related but technically different subsets, but because of the subject matter, they still generally talked about human remains being formerly unidentified, enough to go beyond trivial coverage, so I feel it still applies in principle; also WP:SIGCOV says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Also, not all op-eds are unreliable; WP:NEWSORG provides for rare scenarios for which op-eds are reliable, and the in this case op-ed written by a subject-matter expert, criminologist Nancy La Vigne, so I am inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt relative to a WP:EXPERTSPS. Further, I feel discounting the sourcing as being American-centric might amount to WP:ATA#Geographic scope.
With regards to NOTDIR, calling it a "repository of loosely associated topics" appears to be a stretch because they are in common an unidentified body, which while technically not uncommon, pales in comparison to, say, 3,279,857 deaths in the United States in 2023 (1 for every 745); hence it should be as encyclopedic as the list already at unidentified decedent. Also, OR/V issues are generally nothing restricting the list to only those with enwiki articles (45 out of thousands, if not millions), thus fulfilling recognized [...] navigation [...] purposes, can't solve. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a complete misread of WP:NLIST. NLIST specifically says we need to restrict lists to those where the targeted topic of the list " grouping or set in general has been discussed". If you can't find sources that talk about the concept of the list directly in a general way, that is exactly the kind of thing that indicates WP:NLIST is not met. Piecemeal, partial, and tangential coverage does not meet the NLIST guideline which requires broad overview sourcing on a given topic. Further, the lack of non-US coverage in the sourcing and in-article content in the text of the sources is very concerning for having a list with a global framework. For a global topic there needs to be sourcing written from a global paradigm; otherwise there will inevitably be an article rife with Wikipedia:Systemic bias due to issues of Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance. I don't think its possible with the current sourcing to create a global article that isn't inherently a WP:POV/WP:UNDUE violation due to being entirely created from only American-centric sources. But that doesn't matter anyway, because of the lack of direct coverage, which demonstrates a failure of WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:NLIST. 4meter4 (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would work much better as a category, and the current list is too much of a WP:FORK of the main article. If a full list were included, it would go into the thousands. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian a full list would probably be in the millions or tens of millions. NAMUS has tracked close to 100,000 identifications of unidentified bodies since it was founded in 2003, and that is just bodies in the United States. If we were to include the entire globe, and go through law enforcement/hospital/government records globally over the last two hundred years the number would be many times that size.4meter4 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 attack on Emmanuel Mwambulukutu[edit]

2007 attack on Emmanuel Mwambulukutu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of WP:LASTING - unfortunately a lot of violent crime happens in South Africa, not every attack is noteworthy. BrigadierG (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment an attack on an ambassador is more notable than a random attack, but unless there was some lasting impact, I'd probably agree with Nom. 08:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete the diplomat may well be notable to have his own article, but not this event in particular I would say. Uhooep (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Emmanuel Mwambulukutu used to be an article on the diplomat before it was redirected to this newly-created page on the 2007 attack. It wasn't in great shape, but with most of the sources dead, I can't say much definitively on his personal notability other than it's probably borderline. The attack probably isn't notable enough on its own, but I didn't do any real research into it, so I'm not placing an actual !vote. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if Mwambulukutu was a Member of Parliament from 1985-2000 then why was the article binned in the first place. That would make him notable. Even if the article was a mess it could still be improved. Uhooep (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have restored his bio. He is clearly a notable politician having been an MP in the Tanzanian Parliament. Perhaps any non-duplicated prose from this afd can be transcribed there where appropriate. Uhooep (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Emmanuel Mwambulukutu, not enough content to stand on its own. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Emmanuel Mwambulukutu. This is something that happened in his life and should be part of his biography. We don't split random events in someone's biography off to their own articles unless there's so much to write about that it's impractical to keep it in the bio. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no point in merging. All the content is present in the main article. XabqEfdg (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't need a separate article and all info is already in the Emmanuel Mwambulukutu article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Crime Proposed deletions[edit]

Deletion Review[edit]

  1. ^ "Serial murder". Britannica. Retrieved 2024-04-22.
  2. ^ an offender can be anyone.
    • Holmes & Holmes 1998, Serial murder is the killing of three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a significant cooling-off period between the murders The baseline number of three victims appears to be most common among those who are the academic authorities in the field. The time frame also appears to be an agreed-upon component of the definition.
    • Petherick 2005, p. 190 Three killings seem to be required in the most popular definition of serial killing since they are enough to provide a pattern within the killings without being overly restrictive.
    • Flowers 2012, p. 195 in general, most experts on serial murder require that a minimum of three murders be committed at different times and usually different places for a person to qualify as a serial killer.
    • Schechter 2012, p. 73 Most experts seem to agree, however, that to qualify as a serial killer, an individual has to slay a minimum of three unrelated victims.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Crime&oldid=1227267619"