Knowledge (XXG)

:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

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 {{Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Crime|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Crime. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Knowledge (XXG):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 Knowledge (XXG)'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 Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography.

See also: Social science-related deletions.

Crime

Varrio 204th Street (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 notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

OSINT for Ukraine (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)

Non-notable organisation, lacking WP:RS to meet WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Not notable event per WP:EVENTCRIT and looks like a violation of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Killing of Michael Mohn (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)

This feels like a violation of WP:NOTNEWS Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ryan Wesley Routh (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:BLP1E. Only notable for the shooting, and unlike Thomas Matthew Crooks, who actually injured Trump during the attempt, Routh did not even shoot close to Trump (sources have said he was 300-500 yards away). Even though the FBI has said this is an assassination attempt, very little is known about the suspect at this time. MarioProtIV (/contribs) 03:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

An automatic firearm is not a weapon of mass destruction, despite how the media spins it. It was not what Bush was searching for in Iraq, since there are literal tonnes of AKs there. Thus the WMD issue is a non-starter, so not relevant to notablity -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
He was charged with "carrying a concealed weapon and possession of a weapon of mass destruction" . David O. Johnson (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
He had a machine gun, which he did not actually use, not a nuclear bomb or similar which is what most people think of as a WMD.--A bit iffy (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
He was convicted of that same charge.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/5-things-apparent-assassination-attempt-trump-golf-courses-113712979 David O. Johnson (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Owning an AK-47 does not in any way lend itself to establishing notability. This is Florida. If I had a nickel for everyone down here who owns a military style assault rifle, I could stop buying lottery tickets. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
For this reason I believe it is best to temporarily delete (or to draftify incase of reinstation) as this accusation is the only reason he is notable enough to be considered for his own article, and even then the notability is being debated above.
WP:BLPCRIME shouldn't be ignored just because this is a high profile case, and I am frankly a bit concerned that not a single person has even mentioned this guideline in the entire discussion . Floine (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, for the simple reason that there are independent global and third-party sources about him that tell and delve into his life and story. It is not the first time that is under the media spotlight for is controversial supporting on Ukrainian-Russia war. For now he has considerable notability as a criminal. 109.114.14.46 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument to use on its own. GhostOfNoMeme 12:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete -- WP:BLP1E on an event that itself is facing an argument on whether it deserves a stand-alone article. I second deletion. Let us stop making an article for every idiot who trespasses with intentions to commit a felony. We are not a Tabloid! Delete immediately or lose the credibility as an Encyclopaedia. Also, giving visibility to such people reinforces their desire to kill.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.87.68.175 (talk • contribs)
Also, giving visibility to such people reinforces their desire to kill. Maybe so, but Knowledge (XXG) is not censored. What's important is the verifiability and notability of an article's subject. GhostOfNoMeme 12:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep: per WP:RAPID also we have Squeaky Fromme, who also failed at an assassination where no one was hurt. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
@LuxembourgLover: We also don't have Michael Steven Sandford who failed at an assassination of Trump where nobody was hurt. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I feel like a person grabbing a cops gun is not the same as police opening fire a a guy aiming at trump. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
In that case, see Salvador Ramos, a man who killed 21 people in ~90 minutes, also someone who doesn't have an article because the section on them is perfectly fine. The only notability by Routh so far is his involvement in an incident not even primarily regarding him (WP:CRIME). While he does meet Perp criteria 1, they still don't even know if this is the right guy. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 14:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Striking out my comment, I have now realized that the two are barely comparable. SirMemeGod  21:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: I was able to find more articles that date back before his attempted assassination, including his marriage and his life with his wife. Plus, it is the second attempted assassination of Donald Trump during the 2024 Election. Yoshiman6464 14:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - Can't see any reason to delete this. I also expect a lot more coverage as he goes to trial and more details are revealed.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep as per others
Waleed (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep; does not satisfy the deletion requirements re: WP:BLP1E. To wit, requirement 3 (The event was not significant and/or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well-documented) is not met:
  • The event is significant; it is an assassination attempt of a former President of the United States. The example that BLP1E gives for notability is literally the Reagan assassination attempt.
  • The role of Ryan Wesley Routh is substantial; he is the primary suspect.
  • While the role of Ryan Wesley Routh is not well documented, this is covered by WP:RAPID as multiple people have noted, as the situation has not yet had enough time to develop and be written about.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The event was not "significant". The example given is the Reagan assassination attempt, where Reagan was severely wounded and nearly died. All that happened yesterday was that someone was found with a gun in a bush at Trump's golf course. No injuries at all – Routh didn't even let off any shots. All three criteria of BLP1E are met here (1: Covered in the context of a single event; 2: Obviously a low-profile individual; 3: the event was not "significant" enough to warrant a separate biography). C F A 💬 20:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you, but regarding Routh didn't even let off any shots I don't think it's known either way, yet. CBC and NPR are both reporting that it's "unclear" whether he let off any shots before the USSS agent(s?) opened fire. The New York Times similarly says it's unclear whether he took any shots "before fleeing" (presumably meaning the time between being engaged by the agents and his fleeing).
Personally, I don't think this will amount to anything like the Crooks event. I don't see it being significant now or in the future. GhostOfNoMeme 20:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, fair enough, I guess. I was reading this Politico article which states: The Sunday incident was “not like what happened in Butler,” said ... “He did not get off any rounds, and that was because the Secret Service agent acted quickly,”. C F A 💬 23:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
It's apparent by now that the shooter did not manage to fire the weapon, but then again, neither did Squeaky Fromme. Given her association with Manson and her well-documented story she has her own article. Routh apparently has a well-documented criminal history and has been the subject of numerous interviews and articles; that on their own wouldn't be notable enough for a BLP -- but his involvement with what is an apparent assassination plot has made him notable. Similar to Fromme, her notability would be diminished had she not plotted to kill a president. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Gregory Lee Leingang also tried to kill President Trump in 2017, but he did not get his own Knowledge (XXG) page. Neither men made a shot or any contact with him. Catboy69 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - It is true that Thomas Matthew Crooks underwent the same treatment in its early stages, with attempted redirects along the way. I'm against using that as keep justification though, considering that he has been confirmed as the attempted assassin of his case, whereas Routh is unconfirmed-- not to mention that there were no shots fired nor injuries sustained. Reasoning for weak keep is that there is significant media coverage, paired with the identification of being a suspect. RadiantTea (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WP:RAPID.Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per GNG ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Participant in a major news story. Another example of deletionism gone wild. Moncrief (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per earlier precedent such as Crooks. We are seeing the beginnings where political violence is being normalized once again in the US since the 1960s (Ronald Reagan's assassin wasn't really politically-motivated ..more of a celebrity fetish/crush thing ). Such novel developments should be represented via individuals such as these. I also disagree with editors saying "He barely did anything" , this also doesn't fit precedents in other cases (1) . Routh is notable enough , whenever he pulled the trigger or not. The fact he was the second person who attempted to assassinate Trump and has a clear political history compared to the late aloof and equivocal Crooks (Who literally was a kid), makes him in some way more interesting for readers.
TheCuratingEditor (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:LASTING. Not notable for just this one incident at this time, and appears unlikely to be notable in the future (with the event itself currently bordering on being notable enough to sustain an article). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WP:RAPID. Neighborhood Review (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to Trump International Golf Club shooting pbp 19:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep he satisfies the notability requirements, the shooting and his Russo-Ukrainian War related activities combined together satisfy the guidelines.XavierGreen (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Given all the speculation, thorough coverage of Routh would unbalance the main article, but a brief summary is likely to produce an unbalanced account of Routh's politics and motivations. Nuance matters in a politically charged issue like this one, and the best way to maintain nuance is to maintain an article, at least for now. Guettarda (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep At this point in time it quite literally is too soon to dismiss him as not notable or not worthy of coverage. It has been ONE day since the investigation began. To close the book on him and say he's not worthy of note is a rush to judgement on many fronts. While the investigation runs its course and the Court moves as well, it can be re-evaluated as more information comes to light. However for the moment, rushing to delete or saying both the would-be assailant and the incident are not notable is an extreme rush to judgement as there are obviously facts that we don't know yet. In cases like this it's best to wait a few days and as much as a week before making any judgement calls. GokuSS400 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • KEEP This person tried to assassinate a former President who is a current party's nominee for president. This was almost immediately known; and every fact disclosed since the attempted assassination has confirmed that it was an attempted assassination. The FBI has now stated that he was "lying in wait" for Trump for nearly 12 hours. Let the people see the facts as they are publicly known... otherwise, the attempt to delete this article is just another censorship attempt. What else do you need... a conviction? Dw1215 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this. Routh's situation is more akin to someone like Gregory Lee Leingang, who also had an "attempt" to assassinate Trump but did not get close enough to injure him. Leingang is briefly mentioned on Security incidents involving Donald Trump, and so Routh could be mentioned there, or at the main article about this incident. Natg 19 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Another similar situation is Michael Steven Sandford (2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident), who also does not have a separate article. Natg 19 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Meaningless examples, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I could just as easily bring up Sara Jane Moore from the Attempted assassination of Gerald Ford in San Francisco or Squeaky Fromme from the Attempted assassination of Gerald Ford in Sacramento: neither of whom injured a president. Unlike you, I was citing Knowledge (XXG) policy, specifically condition 3 of WP:BLP1E. Routh's role was 1) substantial and 2) well-documented in RS. ~ HAL333 23:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
@HAL333 You understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to your example of John Hinckley Jr., right? Though I agree with Natg that Hinckley isn't in the same category as Routh appears to be. As far as conditions are concerned, Routh's role may have been "substantial" in the context of the "apparent" attempted assassination, but there's an or there that you seem to be missing, and that's the event is not significant, and this one clearly is borderline right now given nothing happened (nobody was hurt or injured, and one Secret Service agent fired his weapon). Being well-documented in RS is not sufficient enough to justify a separate article. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Nice straw man. Hinckley's not my example. It's WP:BLP1E's. And the "or" is irrelevant if Routh meets both points for condition 3, as he does. An assassination arrempt on the former POTUS is not "significant"? Come on. Notability is not dependent on fatality. ~ HAL333 23:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure if I would cite BLP1E for this. I believe this fits more under WP:NOPAGE. However, if we are to argue BLP1E, I don't believe this is incident is "significant" per point 3. Routh was not close enough to Trump to fire off a shot, nor was anyone injured in this incident. This incident is given more press coverage in light of the assassination attempt in July, but if this incident had happened in January or February, no one would think much of it. Natg 19 (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Well it didn't happen in January of February... ~ HAL333 23:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
... but the event was not significant (criteria 3 of BLP1E). Routh apparently never even let off a shot. He was found in a bush with a gun and was promptly arrested. Hinckley, on the other hand, actually shot (and nearly killed) Reagan. C F A 💬 23:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The media certainly thinks Routh's actions were significant, if the extensive coverage is anything to go by. Knowledge (XXG) should follow the judgement of reliable sources, not insert its own judgement. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, the word criteria is plural. The singular is criterion. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Though I suppose I should have treated the word media as plural myself. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, the closer should disregard any WP:RAPID arguments, as by the very nature of the policy page it is on, RAPID is about events, not people. So if this was an AfD for the Trump International Golf Club shooting, then it would be a policy argument, but this is not an event article, this is a BLP article. Furthermore, literally right above RAPID on the same policy page is WP:DELAY, which applies just as much, if not more so. Silverseren 02:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Note to closer I am neither new nor an SPA. I have been editing for over 15 years and have made over 100,000 edits. As for WP:RAPID, that guideline language says It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer. 36 hours after the Secret Service fired the shots, the significance of the event and the accused is crystal clear to those who read the voluminous coverage in many reliable sources that have published independent coverage of this man today. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Do you acknowledge that there's a ton of SPAs and newly made accounts here making non-policy arguments? As for RAPID, you even note yourself that the event is significant, but we're not discussing the event here. We're discussing if the accused has independent notability from the event, which RAPID doesn't support and also has not been shown. Large amounts of coverage of the event doesn't inherently then mean the person involved deserves a separate article. Silverseren 03:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Silver seren, we do not delete a new article because new editors support keeping the article, especially when experienced editors like me also support keeping the article. Major top tier news sources worldwide are not only reporting on the event, but are also publishing countless separate independent articles devoted to investigating the background of this person who has multiple felony convictions including for barricading himself with a machine gun about 20 years ago, and who was written up in the New York Times just last year for his incompetent efforts to recruit former Afghan soldiers to go fight against Russia in Ukraine. As well as being a Knowledge (XXG) editor and administrator, I am also a Knowledge (XXG) reader and user. In those last two roles, I resent the efforts of some Knowledge (XXG) editors to deny me the right to learn as much about this person as possible in a curated article in the world's greatest encyclopedia, instead forcing me and other readers to do online searches and evaluate source reliability on our own, and sort out the grains of wheat from the massive internet chaff. That is the very purpose of Knowledge (XXG), and if folks want to delete articles about people like Squeaky Fromme and this individual, I will always oppose that vigorously. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete far too many editors playing investigator and connecting his name with old newspaper articles. Everything that actually should be included is mentioned on the article about the shooting. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Traumnovelle, the connections to "old newspaper articles" is being made by the highest quality reliable sources now, not by Knowledge (XXG) editors doing their own original research. Are you reading the actual coverage? Cullen328 (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm reading what was in the article. Which at the time was original research that goes against NOTPRIMARY and BLP in some cases such as marriage records. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect/Merge. As it stands, the page feels like a more verbose version of the perpetrator section on the golf club page. I don't feel like that's needed context per WP:PAGEDECIDE. If people look up his name to get the attempt, we could easily redirect it to that section and lose minimal context, if any. HeptatonicScale (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep There's already a large and growing body of published articles about the guy. He meets notability requirements. 203.211.104.189 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Addendum: For everyone citing WP:BLP1E, that policy gives John Hinckley Jr as an example of someone who gets an article anyway. Routh is analogous to Hinckley. 203.211.104.189 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but either Draftify or Keep as sadly, if Thomas Matthew Crooks, solely notable for another attempted assassination, could remain due to the general notability guideline, then we should probably stop beating a dead horse and acknowledge that in technicality, Routh is notable enough for an article. OhHaiMark (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
We are not bound by "technically we have to" if it seems clear that an article is simply not valid for inclusion, especially if your thoughts behind "technically" is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kingsif (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:BLP1ENOT. Role in the particular recent event significant. Role well-documented. Event notable. Not a low-profile individual. Reliable sources do not even cover him only in the context of a single event. Possible to write a biography as evidenced by the content of the page. Content encyclopedic and educational. Facts due. Background and context encyclopedically meaningful. Too much information alien to the event and far removed from it to merge into the event article.—Alalch E. 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    Interesting essay, and this individual clearly meets the criteria discussed in it. Pretty obvious why some editors want this BLP binned. Yet, we have Thomas Matthew Crooks, who outside of an initial flurry of coverage, it's highly unlikely that we'll get additional details around what motivated him or his background. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep H's being specifically named worldwide, and the list keeps growing, not low-profile by any means.Thief-River-Faller (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep due to significant and likely lasting media coverage. Different than Thomas Matthew Crooks but has received similar levels of coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: likely to have a continued coverage. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect Some people may be interested in the other activities of this person, but that is for the tabloids: the pertinent information for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG) is entirely about his involvement in an event. That event has an article that is well-developed enough it warrants a decent "suspect" section. Keep the name redirect for searchability. I would probably say the same about Thomas Matthew Crooks, FWIW, but it can also be said that Crooks got a shot on and then was killed, so significance as an individual is a bit bigger. Kingsif (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    That doesn't really account for Knowledge (XXG) having an article for Squeaky Fromme, but I don't want to wander too far into other stuff, etc. We cover aspects of a subjects life that reliable sources deem notable enough to cover in depth, per WP:WEIGHT. If RS cover other aspects of Routh's history in depth, Knowledge (XXG) has a responsibility to cover that as well (with respect to policy). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    You keep bringing up Fromme having an article and, as you note: WP:OTHERSTUFF. We're talking about this article, not if a different one should exist or if justification for one transfers to another.
    It doesn't matter how many RSs decide to flavour the meal, if it's not information that establishes notability, then it shouldn't be considered here. While we (rightly) include that 'flavour' in BLPs, the notability has to be established first. When we take the flavour out, all we're left with is information that belongs at the event article. As I said, that article is decent enough you can have a longer "suspect" section including some background if you want. Kingsif (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Merge As per above. FloridaMan21 15:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep - seems to meet notability and contains additional relevant details that would be too much to add to the main article. ~Darth Stabro 18:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Selective Merge & Redirect: to Trump International Golf Club shooting. Two policies point against a stand alone page - WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Both policies point to the core policies of material about living persons - articles "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Knowledge (XXG)'s job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." --Enos733 (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. An enough lot of RS coverage is coming out about Routh very recently and intially appears notable based on this, as with Crookes. Do not in principle oppose an AfD in a month or two's time once the dust has settled, but considering the further coverage during his trial and likely sentencing it seem unlikely to become unnotable.  Spy-cicle💥  21:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep given significant media coverage and meets WP:GNG. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I think That having an article on this man will help our historical understanding of this election, two assassination attempts in one election cycle is unprecedented. He's also an oddball, the information online about him and his motives tell an interesting story that is unique. He probably has the largest digital footprint of any attempted or successful US presidential assassin. It does help that it's a very funny digital footprint. Spicygarbage (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Notable for a single WP:RECENT event and can be adequately covered in Trump International Golf Club shooting. We don't need to re-post every single detail of his life that happens to be in a news report this week. --ZimZalaBim 02:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Meh. ZimZalaBim has some great points right above me. However, general notability guidelines are extremely selectively enforced. Would this be kept if it were, say, a person attempting to assassinate a foreign leader? I feel like this might belong better in the event article, just like Crooks, buuuuuuuut it's a major event, so I think it could be notable. LilianaUwU 02:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Not notable in his own right, and this should be dealt with within the broader article. - SchroCat (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Blatantly obvious keep, this guy is accused of attempting to assassinate a former US president while that president is running for re-election as a candidate for one of the two major American parties. If this doesn't qualify as 'notable' in the eyes of dozens of Knowledge (XXG) editors, then what does count? Should we (the people who believe that some insect species found on a single unpopulated island in the Philippines are notable in their own small way) just give it up already? Should we just get it over with and delete Knowledge (XXG) altogether? Maybe, if we could have a small concession, we could delete everything except the Earth page, and on that write the word 'harmless' and nothing else? Perhaps, if I could be greedy, I could convince you to allow us to write 'mostly harmless', though it does take up more space? Joe (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep Thomas Matthew Crooks has his own page, so should Ryan. Scuba 12:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete / merge (Redacted) 124.169.141.129 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep Routh has a lot of good sources on him, he also has other sources of his past crimes which adds more notability Joey (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete, at least for now, per WP:SUSPECT. For individuals who are not public figures editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. Maintaining an article on Routh at this stage strongly implies that he is guilty of trying to kill Trump when such fact has not been established. TRCRF22 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
The key phrase in that policy is seriously consider. It's not a hard-and-fast dictum against documenting charges that are being pursued in a court of law, particularly if mentioning the charges is justified by the notability of the case. The editors have been careful to use words like allegedly and suspect, so the presumption of innocence is being respected. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:5DF1:603A:F24E:9B9B (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, given the extensive coverage of the charges against Routh, I would contend that he is a public figure now. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2488:6F5B:A83B:264D (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
You are wrong. See Knowledge (XXG):Who is a low-profile individual. TRCRF22 (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. "High-profile: Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program" - Routh gave interviews connected to his role as a recruiter for Ukrainian armed forces. 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2488:6F5B:A83B:264D (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
So... clearly not a low-profile individual. I would cite that essay precisely to argue that he is not a low-profile individual. —Alalch E. 22:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment There was news coverage of Routh even before the murder attempt. Perhaps he is independently notable as a skateboard advocate/rapist-chasing vigilante/war recruiter/local petty criminal. Bremps... 15:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Petty crime or being a "local hero" does not make one notable. The "recruiter for Ukraine" may be indepedently notable, but that did not get much coverage until now, when journalists started looking deeper into his background. Routh was not a "known" figure for his recruitment efforts, and Ukrainian organizations disavow knowing him. Natg 19 (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - Our readers have a reasonable expectation of certain types of content. A biography of an attempted assassin — agglomerating information from a wide range of public sources — is exactly one such case. Miles over the GNG.... Carrite (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - BLP1E is for the winner of a lottery or a gameshow, not a progatonist in a world-historical event. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
KEEP alleged attempted assassination of former US president and candidate merits wikipedia article. Shoehorning into golf assassination attempt cries out for removing history of the gentleman. Brucer42 (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Gąsawa massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article only describes the motives for the massacre and nothing more, the course of the crime is also lacking, in addition, most things (sources) in the article have a trivial mention of the subject in one sentence, which is incompatible with WP:SIGCOV Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In addition, I could not find here this footnote Labuda, Gerard (1995). The death of Leszek the White (1227). Historical Annals. 61: 7-33. Gerard Labuda describing the views of Józef Uminski. If somewhere you Marek still has about this study then it's cool, but if not, well, we have problems. I hope that we will be able to keep the article after all. Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Turkish organised crime in Great Britain (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)

At the moment the article does not have enough sources but as an alternative to deletion maybe it should be merged into Gangs in the United Kingdom or Crime in the United Kingdom? Unless anyone likes to add more cites and maybe expand it? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

For the most part, we don't list these based on ethnic affiliation. Essentially this is just copied from already existing articles: List of mass executions and massacres in Yugoslavia during World War II and List of massacres in the Bosnian War. Griboski (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. What do you mean we don’t list these based on ethnic affiliation for the most part? List of massacres of Turkish people? List of massacres of Armenians? List of massacres of Azerbaijanis?
As for your second point, I mean you could argue any duplicate / identical information across articles is copied? This list focuses solely on Bosniaks, so I believe it deserves its own article, as did the curation page. Nevertheless, that does not warrant for deletion an article that cites 25 RS Aliy Dawut (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Yet there's no list for Albanians, Croats, Serbs, Macedonians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Russians, Ukrainians, and so on. My view is that we shouldn't be going down that road when most of them are already listed by conflict or country. --Griboski (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Ok… I understand your personal view on the matter but again I don’t think that is enough to justify deleting an article that cites multiple RS and passed Knowledge (XXG) curation standards fairly quickly. Why not try and address concerns on the talk page instead of immediately attempting to delete an entire article? Aliy Dawut (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Strongly oppose the request. The fact that the theme is present in other articles doesn't warrant the deletion of an article. OP also called for deletion of Genocide of Bosniaks in World War II. Well... As an other user suggested, one could simply discuss this in the talk page instead of hastily attempting to delete it. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Could this be satisfied by edits to those lists? Lamona (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I mean possibly, but why do that when we could just leave this already existing much more detailed and complete list up and running? Aliy Dawut (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, the point of this AfD is about redundancy: "For the most part, we don't list these based on ethnic affiliation. Essentially this is just copied from already existing articles". So it seems like a "keep" !vote needs to respond to to that. Lamona (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
There have already been several responses to that, which was the original AFD request. Again, there are several other ethnic group related massacre articles already present and established, and although there is some material which is the same as other articles for obvious reasons, there is still much new and unique content listed here. Moreover, as I and another user pointed out, this concern doesn’t seem to warrant the immediate deletion of an entire article that cites a multitude of RS. Why not address the concerns on the talk page first instead of going right for a deletion attempt? Aliy Dawut (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is not clear that there is any policy-based reason for deletion being advanced here; "we don't do X" is not such a reason. Editors should try to identify such a reason if there is one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I have not much else to add besides what I and others on the oppose side have already definitively stated. Please see my above points for opposing and feel free to ask me any further questions Aliy Dawut (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Kristian P. Lusardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:CRIMINAL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi M S Hassan. Thanks for reviewing this article. However Knowledge (XXG) platform is created with principles and articles of public interest which has notability and I feel this article has. Request you to withdraw this notice.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank.Thanks Mushy Yank for his opinion.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm finding the same as bonadea. Here is something more recent that mentions her, but again in the context of her death and without significant biographical coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    I should add that there is limited coverage of her in the context of her striking another politician with a shoe (example), which is also not very useful for WP:GNG, and some routine election coverage (example). So while I think it's plausible that there is solid biographical coverage out there, I don't think we've found it yet. If anyone can turn up an obituary (rather than an article about the circumstances of her death) that might give us something to go on. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)


Crime Proposed deletions

Deletion Review

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑