1168:
because of who was involved rather than because of the crime itself. If no notable people are involved, and the crime isn't elevated to historical significance ... then in all honesty it probably doesn't deserve an article. A comment has been made above about recentism. I agree. A crime that is a big deal right now might not be a big deal next year, won't be a big deal in five years' time, will be forgotten in ten years. Crimes from twenty years ago are not a big deal now. As a result, only crimes contemporary with
Knowledge (XXG) are likely to be effected by this policy - people aren't going to go back through the newspapers to see what was big news in 1972 and try to create articles for every crime that was reported in more than one national paper in that year. It's easy to do that now while the news is current, but almost by definition that makes it news, not encyclopaedic knowledge. If a crime is historically significant, it will gain a page under that notability criteria. If it involves notable people, the crime is best discussed on those notable people pages. In all other cases, I believe it's non-notable news, not an encyclopaedia entry, and has no place on Knowledge (XXG). So opposed on those grounds.
863:, but actually to impose a different standard than is applied to other subjects in Knowledge (XXG). Unlike other topics, people primarily known as victims of crimes could never be subjects of Knowledge (XXG) biographies, regardless of the amount and quality of reliable source information that may be available. That strikes me as subtly undermining Knowledge (XXG)'s core principles aimed toward developing a truly comprehensive encyclopedia. Your goal may be to reduce AfD debates, but adding conflicting criteria won't necessarily do that; there will continue to be borderline cases. I wish this effort had gone in a different direction to clarify and strengthen existing guidelines (for example, by better defining the concept of "historical notability") rather than to develop a conflicting guideline.
1211:(Thanks for the formatting help Keeper - I had a bastard of a time trying to not break the page adding my comment - I hope I don't do it again). Fritzpoll, I think I pretty much stated what I think is wrong with the proposed policy. If a crime reaches the point of being notable, it will be notable without this policy; if it doesn't satisfy notability without the use of this policy, then I believe it shouldn't be considered notable. Generating a new policy to protect a group of pages from AfD for Not Notable is not in my opinion the right way to go about it. The fact that the articles aren't satisfying notability under the current policies isn't a sign that the policies need to be amended, but that the articles
1633:
specifically from who the victim/suspect is, is presumed to be, or some trait the media has latched onto. "Criminal acts" is just too broad of a grouping to make sweeping naming suggestions, and I believe existing guidelines are sufficient enough to allow this broad category of articles to be treated on a case by case basis. A guideline would of course help solve these questions, but as it is currently written, I believe it makes too large of an assumption about such a wide range of articles (and needs to make allowances for articles that shouldn't be moved to
1608:– in a nutshell: it is important for the guideline to ensure respect for both the victim and the integrity of the judicial process. I think more emphasis should be paid to "In particular, editors should remember that someone accused of a crime is not considered guilty of that crime until they have been found to be so under judicial process. If such adjudication has not occurred, editors must give serious consideration into not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured" and far less to
378:
articles this covers are by their nature topics which have strong emotions attached leading to charged debates which have the potential to spill over into drama that extends beyond just the debate page. It's far more difficult and sensitive to argue that a person's brother/sister/child etc.'s murder or disappearance is non-notable than it is their band, despite that the encyclopedic concerns are identical at base. A clear guideline provides a remove that allows us to handle these matters with more equanimity.--
987:). This proposed guideline says that no amount of public and/or scholarly attention to these individuals, nor their enduring historical relevance, can ever qualify them as notable for a biography. To me, that seems fundamentally inconsistent with the standards used throughout the rest of Knowledge (XXG). We could be left in the strange situation that a person is considered non-notable by Knowledge (XXG), even though they are covered by biographies in a "traditional" encyclopedia (such as
956:
they provide a guide to help in applying the fundamental criteria. For example, athletes who compete in a high-level, fully professional league almost always have been the subject of reliable and independent secondary source material; hence, an AfD discussion can take that as a working assumption without necessarily tracking down all of the secondary source material (though the editors of the article really should do this). Of course, the guidelines in
1188:
deletionism (if such philosophies truly exist) in that it prevents some of the articles currently being created and kept after AfD, without allowing mention of a well-documented incident to go unrecorded. Since this also partly serves as a content guideline, the articles would also be "compelled" by other editors not to include vast amounts of irrelevant memorialising material, but to stick to the pertinent facts. The problem as it stands is that per
1043:" actually goes part way toward meeting my concern, though IMO requiring that the perpetrator be the subject of a book is a bit too stringent. I think that two or three major articles appearing in national newspapers or magazines a year or more after the event should be sufficient evidence of historical notability. Similar criteria for victimes would avoid deletion of biographies of historically significant victims such as J.D. Tippit, Ronald Goldman,
332:. Why would I support this page if I agree it to be a part of another page? I do so because I believe that its foundations are strong, and my acceptance of its being merged into another policy page does not mean that I believe the words in this are not worth it. I believe that a compromise solution would be a broader discussion allowing a snippet of this page being included in
225:. This is very much needed. Well thought out and wrote (aside from the average tweaks here and there). I agree with the rationale of keeper (above and below). I've seen this too many times on AfD and I've been hesitant to actually participate in those discussions, as it was really not clear, either side. This makes it clear, supporting already existing policies and guidelines.
973:
overall topic." The wording eliminates biographies on most victims or perpetrators of crimes without prohibiting them in cases where the victim or perpetrator is historically significant and there is ample reliable source material. All of these principles support
Knowledge (XXG)'s mission as a comprehensive encyclopedia that limits its mission to encyclopdic topics.
85:. Yes, we have notability guidelines, generally speaking. We also have several subsets to the notability guideline when a specific topic/subject matter warrants it. Based on the continual pattern of a. crime happens, b. criminal is added to Knowledge (XXG), c. Victim is added to Knowledge (XXG), d. AfD for criminal and victim happen, where e. the
1612:, even if the end result is the same. There may be members of the public who spend a lot more time on Knowledge (XXG) than paying attention to the local news, and some of these will get called for jury duty one day. In the case of living victims (either non-notable or semi-notable), it is probably better to have no article at all.
356:, then candidates for deletion, is depressing. The whole situation is created purely because people don't realise what they are actually interested in and what is actually being covered in media. I am satisfied that this guideline deals with that. Notability is far more easily established for widely-syndicated news events than
2110:
that only a certain group chose to do so, and my request to them all was identical, and, I believe, neutrally worded. Not sure why how you've stumbled on this (now reasonably old) proposal, although it garners periodic bursts of interest. I'd also point out that the original marking of the proposal as rejected was done
939:, fundamentally address the question of whether the topic (or person in the case of BIO) has been the subject of reliable and independent secondary source material. It is an objective standard, which is essentially as broad as possible while still maintaining consistency with the major content policies of
1798:
then clearly the article should not exist. As far as I am concerned the same thing applies to murders and disappearances; if the article is about a murder or a disappearance, it should be called that. Obviously it is a less clear-cut case, but if it was simple we wouldn't need a guideline. If all the
1644:
Additionally, there are cases where biographical information is required to fully illustrate a case, and it is best for the article to reside at the name of the person who is the subject of whatever action the article discusses (whether it be a murder, kidnapping, or disappearance). This also goes to
1436:
I support the general idea of this guideline, but I would like to add a statement that many incidents of crime that meet the criteria of this notability guideline can and should be documented in a broader article. Potentially appropriate articles for documenting individual crime incidents can include
1187:
that would remove the ambiguities within it. Actually, what provoked me to write this guideline was the fact that the arguments at AfD were sufficiently strong on both sides of an argument that there could be no consensus, defaulting to a keep. This guideline actually falls between inclusionism and
1073:
I shall make an adjustment. I didn't mean historical notbaility was a loophole - I meant that the guideline as it stands presents a loophole that would allow articles to be excluded that shouldn't be: a loophole for exclusion rather than inclusion. I'll post to your talk page once the amendment has
810:
on that basis. On the other hand, this guideline actually promotes inclusion of this material under the, perhaps, more appropriately titled "Disappearance of Laci
Peterson" (although as this is a pre-existing article, it would be subject to consensus on the article's talk page) so this content would
377:
This defines what is already the state of consensus when wiser heads prevail at relevant AFD debates. Those past debates show that the same wrongheaded arguments are made and the same arguments that prevail need to be reinvented/restated each time in the absence of a guideline. Moreover, the types of
242:. I'd say that given the many, many AfDs on such cases which very often end in no consensus due to people interpreting the currently ambiguous ideas that come from existing policies and guidelines, this is warranted, and by no means is it instruction creep because it's necessary as pointed out above.-
1421:
I have a problem with the suggested titling. As a practical matter, the references to these acts will frequently be by a name, i.e. ], and it doesn't make sense to have every single reference be ], or to drive everything through double redirects. There's nothing wrong with titling an article about a
691:
Not that it is your main point, but I wouldn't have closed the Jana
Shearer argument that way. If 10 different closing admins looked at that same AfD to close it, I believe it would be closed 10 different ways. Or at least 5 keep 5 delete. Which is why we need to bolster the guidelines - it takes
281:
following the exchange below between AuburnPilot and Wisdom89 that there will be a discussion on article talk pages as to whether there should be a move or not. The guideline, to which I added a couple of tweaks, seems well crafted to answer a specific and frustrating problem--the endless stream of
955:
then goes on to list some specific criteria for fields such as athletes, entertainers, politicians, etc. These criteria are sometimes misinterpreted as identifying when an individual "merits" or "deserves" to be the subject of a
Knowledge (XXG) biography; I think the correct interpretation is that
916:
to clarify how these policies interact when it comes to high-profile crime, and I'm not sure how you feel it undermines them. I commented on the efforts of the guideline towards historical notability, but you haven't commented on them directly, and I would be the first to accept that this may need
850:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. However, it probably did not have the intended consequence, since I am now more strongly convinced that this draft policy should not be supported. As your discussion of points 1, 2, and 3 makes clear, this aim of this proposed policy is not to clarify existing
831:
following on from your paraphrasing) but the paragraph itself is unclear. If taken in parts, it may be interpreted as you have done, but if taken as a whole it makes criminal acts that are covered widely into borderline cases - if this were not so, the AfDs would be easy for the admins to close.
822:
4) "Historical notability" is a tough nut to crack and its resolution is the last possibly contentious point. the proposal attempts to set standards on the sources such that notability will be established by lengthy and widescale media coverage, and proposes
Wikinews at the first resort when these
814:
3) If the event not the person is to be covered, then material ought to be focussed on the event and the relevant facts. Just because a source exists doesn't means the content is notable. On the other hand, our notability guidelines are not supposed to assert notability of content within articles
545:
or something like that. That way, the ideas could be carried into a general format about writing about crimes and criminal acts and victims and the like, while leaving notability up to the already existing guidelines, which are quite well suited to the task, if they are enforced as written. If the
1236:
AfDs defaulting to Keeps in undecided cases. So generally I oppose the creation of new notability policies to cover groups of articles that are already covered by existing notability policies, when the existing policies are functioning just as they are intended to - as in this case I believe they
1196:
historical notability matters. These two policies conflict, and this guideline seeks to resolve the conflict in this specific set of circumstances. That said, it may be that you feel it is going about it in the wrong way, in which case it would be good to hear what you feel is specifically wrong
1182:
I seem to do a lot of typing on this page recently! Many thanks for your comments. I understand your concerns, but I think that whilst the general notability criteria assess notability based purely on references from third-party independent reliable sources, with few additional caveats, then this
758:
are sufficient. Adding another notability guideline actually tends to weaken the existing ones. 2) The proposed notability requirement for victims, "...should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created
2109:
Those users were contacted because of their involvement in a particular series of AfDs where the cogent points suggested as a solution formed the basis of this proposal. Canvassing is trying to stack the vote by persuading people who only have a particular opinion to "vote" - it is not my fault
536:
As a separate "notability guideline" there is actually little here not already covered by the other notability guidelines in conjunction with the BLP guidelines. I suggest, instead of creating ANOTHER notability guideline (which
Knowledge (XXG) has WAY TOO MUCH OF), you might consider creating a
976:
Where I disagree with this new proposed guideline is where it prohibits articles on victims (or in some cases perpetrators) of crimes even though it is clear that the victim or perpetrator is historically significant and that there is ample reliable secondary source material available to write a
263:
I had some prior CREEP concerns, but currently feel the overall benefit of this guideline heavily outweighs that. This guideline is well written in that if it is cited in future AfD discussions, it will clearly explain the logic as to why subject X is notable. It addresses Not News and
Biography
1665:
Responding to both of the above points by Kww and auburn. My intention in specifying the title this way was because it best illustrates what the content of the articles ought to be. If an article is titled after a person, it implies that the article is a biography. This is explicitly not the
1167:
notability (the Great Train
Robbery for instance), it will have an article. If a crime is not historically significant but involves a significant person, then the crime is best mentioned on that person's page rather than as a separate article - in effect this is saying the crime is significant
991:). Your argument seems to be hinged on the view that Knowledge (XXG) biographies are awarded to those who "deserve" them, rather than reflecting the interests of authors (and readers) of books, articles, and other reliable secondary source material that an encyclopedia is designed to summarize.
972:
add the criteria that "historical" notability must also be a consideration. It adds that "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the
771:
that belong in a comprehensive encyclopedia. 3) The restriction on biographical information may be appropriate for some articles, especially those on living persons, but strikes me as inappropriate when the victim or perpetrator has been the subject of an in-depth biography published by a major
664:
I'm with Jayron here, I don't see what this is adding to anything if we're referring back to external notability (apart from the crime) and making yet another place for people to have to look and cite. It hones in some particular issues, (such as naming), which is good but I don't see what the
1005:
If the inclusion criteria for victims/perpetrators were expanded to more explicitly acknowledge inclusion based on historical notability, would that address your objections to this guideline? As I understand it (please forgive/correct this crude summary of your well reasoned argument if I am
721:
The problem is, looking at the AfD debates, of which there are many, on this topic, a plethora of policies and guidelines are quoted (normally accurately) by the opposing sides. These debates become as contentious as they are because both sides believe they have the definitive policy and/or
1632:
My only true objection to this proposal (which I otherwise support) is the sweeping assumptions made in the section regarding titles. This proposal seems to assume that one cannot cover the event if the article is titled after the victim or suspect. In some cases, the notability is derived
1116:
Oppose, a substantial proportion of murders get national coverage in New
Zealand, but not all of these are worthy of articles. In a larger country such as the USA, national coverage for a criminal act would be unusual and this proposal makes more sense. However, the proposal encourages
1312:
You're entitled to your opinion about the proposal, although it was largely to prevent good material being deleted/fought over at AfDs. I would ask that you redact the comments about canvassing and vote-stacking as they are patently untrue and unsubstantiated as explained below.
579:
currently well suited to this particular "task". A style guide isn't needed. The articles that are getting written are being written just fine. They have citations, they have wikilinks, they are factual, they are sourced. The problem is there are two
208:
specialized encyclopedias cover crime. Thus, cases that received a respectable deal of media coverage have real world notability and are indeed topics that students in law schools will research or that authors will be interested in. Best,
1327:
I still fail to see how informing all interested parties from an AfD (who were on both sides of the argument, and some of whom have opposed this proposal quite adamantly on the talk page of the proposal) is considered "heavy vote stacking"
477:
without prejudice to stating this more succinctly in the main notability or bio guidelines and referring to this as explanatory material. This guideline is good, a great piece of work, in fact. I just fret a bit about policy proliferation.
2114:
the above people had a chance to comment, and then was undone by someone other than me. I must say I slightly resent the implications of your commentary here, but I shall assume that this is merely the result of a forceful opinion
1215:. I understand your point about the tussle between Not News and Notability. In my opinion Notability takes precedence over Not News - and I'm pretty sure that's the way those two policies are supposed to interact: if something is
1666:
impression I would hope to be fostered, since the article should be about the event. I forsee content wars along the lines of "it's got his/her name as the article title, so we should include educational history in there as well".
515:. As others have stated there is a genuine need for a policy regarding articles about criminal acts and those people related to crimes. I personally like the current wording but obviously things can be changed later if neccesary.
1827:
has correctly marked this as rejected. If the community wishes to resurrect this proposal when the next set of AfDs on this matter crop up, it is a simple matter just to change the rejected tag back to the active proposal tag.
726:
the issues, it means that arguments at AfDs can be centred on the "battlefield" of a single guideline, making it easier to reach consensus or to extract the valid arguments for the closing admins. At least, that was my hope!
352:, not a biographical article. The endless stream of articles created in good faith purported to be biographical articles, which then stutter and fail, and become as a result of an complete dearth of information, soon to become
666:
1672:
material, and suggests redirects/disambiguation to assist in finding the material. Is it that you don't agree with what I've written in this, or is it that it is not clear from the guideline that this is what is intended?
722:
guideline to back p their position. This guideline would hopefully end that by having a single guideline that covered the notability issues of articles about the crime or perpetrators. Even if the guideline doesn't solve
746:- The goal of reaching consensus on difficult AfD decisions is a laudable one, but I don't think this proposed guideline is going to do it. 1) Like Jayron32, I think the notability discussions in other guidelines such as
794:
Sorry it's taken me a while to respond to this. My response to point 1 is covered elsewhere on this page and basically boils down to there being insufficient clarity within existing guidelines, as evidenced at previous
117:- if this guideline had existed earlier, it would have avoided a lot of time arguing at AFD about notability. This guideline makes it clear, where existing guidelines did not make it clear, that some events are notable.
1251:
Crazy busy at the moment, so this is jsut a quick reply to say that it was my failure to understand, and that I wasn't suggesting you hadn't understood the points raised. I'll read your response more thoroughly...soon!
1387:
Perhaps if it sparks a widespread, heavy criminal investigation, then yes. In fact, that would probably be an unqualified yes, since nearly all unexplained disappearances are become linked to "crime" in someway.
498:. Although I have concerns about extra guidelines making it harder for newbies to find their way, I think we need something like this. As others have said, if it's not perfect now it can always be tweaked later.
1227:
satisfies Notability, then it deserves an article. So in my opinion when there is a tussle between people claiming an article is notable and other people claiming it's just news, defaulting to a Keep is the
1034:
Yes, my concern would be addressed if the criteria for articles on victimes and/or perpetrators were amended to include the historical hotability of the subject (thereby making them more consistent with
881:
never have an encyclopaedia article dedicated to them, and this guideline is intended to clarify that. The guideline serves to strengthen, for the purposes of criminal acts, the provisions implied by
1283:. Any editor with a keyboard can create these silly Notability pages, which duplicate what is already written on the main notability page. Kill this page as others have recently been killed:
1237:
are. I do understand your point - I assure you my opposition to the policy proposal, as outlined above, is based on my disagreement with your points, not on my failure to understand them.
1219:
Notable and News, it deserves an article because - this being an encyclopaedia - we record anything that is noteworthy. I believe that Not News applies to articles on subjects that are
1794:
went mental on her campus and shot 8293748374 people, including her. When Killer got up that morning he had figs for breakfast. Then he had a shower, then he brushed his teeth etc etc
44:
827:
appears primarily to restrict news stories from local news that are one-off reports, saying that these events are not historically notable and so do not merit inclusion( The line
1481:
If content about a specific criminal incident can easily fit into one of these types of articles, it should not get its own article but should be merged into the broader article.
441:
After having participated in some rather contentious AFDs, we really need something like this. Even if the wording gets tweaked later, at least this puts the framework in place.
964:
might, on their own, be interpreted as saying that anything or anyone covered in a newspaper is notable. Therefore, to keep Knowledge (XXG) focused on encyclopedic topics,
1292:
1371:
As I've proposed on the talk page, I suggest making it clear whether "disappearances", which may or may not have come about by criminal acts, fall under the guideline.--
43:
and this page and do what you will; tell us why you love it, urge us to set it on fire, suggest improvements and raise problems. This subpage has been set aside for
1948:
899:"Notability with regards to this is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question."
1898:
As I said elsewhere, sorry for doing this bass-ackwards. The discussion and andswer are now on the proposed guideline's talk page, where I should have started.
205:
546:
existing guidelines aren't being enforced, then creating ANOTHER notability document that ALSO won't be enforced is pointless. Instead, follow the format of
1010:
for notability, I can see from your argument that there is a loophole avoiding inclusion based on historical significance, when that possibly should be the '
67:
40:
17:
1288:
1183:
problem is going to exist. One option is to tighten up the notability criteria, but efforts to do so risk having unwanted side-effects, as do changes to
905:
being used as an argument for inclusion of articles on non-notable victims of crime, and a huge section of the entire guideline is based on the original
1837:
1782:, which, while it is not a policy, is in my mind crucial. I think an article's title should always reflect the content. If the article is just gonna be:
584:
mindsets about what is/isn't notable. The conflict isn't over the structure or style of the article, but the subject matter. One camp says "keep" per
887:"Victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on their status as victims."
1006:
mistaken) your concern is principally related to the inclusion criteria for victim/perpetrator articles being too restrictive. Whilst deferring to
162:- I'm beginning to see a trend at AfD regarding these discussions, and notability in general is just not cutting it. I don't feel this constitutes
62:
Please use this page to either endorse, oppose, or offer improvements to this subsection of the notability guideline. After reading the relevant
1284:
1040:
634:
36:
28:
617:. Rinse. Repeat. Because in IRL, someone else gets killed and it makes the news and the article gets written and then it gets nominated and
250:
1668:
The guideline as intended was to inhibit the desire to include information on otherwise non-notable persons, make the article relevant to the
460:
We definitely need this as I strongly believe that an event, while notable, does not make those involved in the event instantly notable too.
1869:
I've added a paragraph to the perpatrators section that, if adopted, would help resolve a knotty dispute in the American Criminals category.
780:
on "historical notability" is the appropriate guideline, yet the goal of historical notability isn't addressed in this proposed guideline.
204:
absolutely as the proposed guideline is well-written and spot-on and there is historic and encyclopedic value to criminal acts. Look at how
1474:
something notable that happened as a result of the crime (for example, a new law that was enacted in reaction to a particular criminal act).
1296:
1943:
696:. But your right, out of sight, out of mind. Which is a shame when a valid article is caught up in it that could of/should of been kept.
324:
A very straight-forward message in "in a nutshell" supported by the page. I am open to suggestions that would allow it to be a section of
1613:
622:
2132:
1823:
This proposal has been widely advertised, and yet there are only 15 endorsement/opposition comments on the opinions page. As such,
211:
931:
Let me try to explain why I see this proposal fundamentally conflicts with other notability guidelines. Our standard guidelines,
621:
We need a new inclusion guideline, not a new style guideline. This one fits nicely alongside other specialized "subguidelines".
348:
What I think is important, and is brought out in this proposal, it that what the coverage makes notable enough for inclusion is
35:
This is an attempt to get a few more eyes on the proposed guideline, as not very many people have commented as yet. Please read
1933:
815:
on notable topics, so I'm happy to reconsider the wording - it was mostly to prevent memorialising, but perhaps a reference to
829:
Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.
630:
626:
1576:
1449:
1408:
561:
190:
1280:
1132:
I'm not sure I understand how the guideline discriminates against older crimes. COuld you please go into some more detail?
1039:). I don't see historical notability as a loophole—it's an essential feature of an encyclopedia. The third bullet under "
401:
542:
1958:
889:
The guideline is intended to only allow the event to be covered if it is sufficiently notable. This does not undermine
673:
will always be more contentious than those where enough has passed that, to be honest, it's out of sight, out of mind.
606:
1953:
1938:
1803:, would trivially be satisfied for the event in a majority of those cases, and AfD would be far lighter in its load.
89:, general ending in a rather heated debate, I would say that this subset guideline is valid, needed, and important.
307:
and the like to criminal events, and should reduce the number of highly contentious AFDs on articles such as these.
1799:
AfD controversial discussions were just speedy renamed then most problems would be solved. Notability, as quoth on
1525:
405:
230:
2088:
15:28, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:CaliforniaAliBaba (→New policy proposal that may be of interest)
1854:
1790:
was a Swiss teenager. She had two parents and a name. Once, she went to study in America and while she was there
487:
383:
52:
2155:
2141:
2124:
2103:
1907:
1893:
1878:
1858:
1812:
1767:
1754:
1740:
1723:
1709:
1682:
1659:
1621:
1596:
1582:
1545:
1529:
1501:
1431:
1414:
1380:
1357:
1337:
1322:
1307:
1261:
1246:
1206:
1177:
1141:
1127:
1099:
1083:
1068:
1027:
1000:
926:
872:
841:
789:
736:
716:
686:
657:
566:
524:
507:
490:
469:
452:
436:
418:
387:
369:
340:
316:
291:
273:
255:
234:
217:
196:
154:
126:
109:
56:
2131:
I see 21 users supporting this as a guideline, and six users opposing it. Isn't that sufficient to promote it?
682:
665:
notability adds to BLP1E, etc. For a related discussion that was deleted even though it was Murder of... see
610:
2099:
1617:
1353:
1303:
312:
333:
325:
1760:
1634:
1118:
2138:
1926:
Of the 42 editors, 6 decided to respond to this request for comment, all 6 editors endorsed this page.
1903:
1874:
1704:
1654:
1521:
1242:
1173:
244:
226:
149:
2095:
1779:
1645:
the most likely search term, and how the case is referred to in the sources used within the article. -
1638:
1609:
1349:
1299:
981:'s name appears in the titles of both a book and a master's thesis published 35 years after his murder
816:
353:
1850:
1018:. Please let me know, and thank you for taking hte time to explain your concern to me so thoroughly
465:
379:
48:
1923:
of Fritzpoll, who canvased 42 users, this page was rejected as a proposal clear back in April 2008
1921:
906:
2151:
2120:
1889:
1833:
1750:
1719:
1678:
1592:
1557:
1541:
1389:
1333:
1318:
1257:
1202:
1137:
1079:
1023:
1014:
criterion for inclusion. If this adequately represents your concerns, I will propose a change via
922:
837:
732:
520:
171:
167:
1808:
1566:
1453:
1398:
759:
prior to the crime's commission," is too strict and would exclude, for example, articles such as
703:
644:
555:
365:
308:
180:
122:
96:
1189:
1056:
882:
803:
755:
590:
357:
329:
304:
163:
135:
1376:
1122:
432:
398:
287:
269:
948:
63:
2135:
1899:
1870:
1733:
1696:
1646:
1497:
1471:
the derivative work (for example, film, TV program, or book) based on the crime incident, or
1238:
1169:
143:
1553:
1193:
1184:
1163:
are. My rationale is this: If a crime is so significant as to be elevated to the level of
1036:
1015:
1007:
969:
965:
961:
952:
944:
936:
902:
894:
860:
856:
824:
807:
777:
773:
751:
747:
693:
547:
538:
300:
139:
1949:
User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archives/2008/March#New_policy_proposal_that_may_be_of_interest
1764:
1737:
1488:
is ideal. Some crimes, such as fraud, do not occur as discrete "acts". Could it be called
1048:
772:(non-tabloid) reliable source. Again, I think the basic concerns are better addressed in
597:, not about a person, per say. But it is about the person. But no its not. But, hey it
503:
461:
337:
2147:
2116:
1885:
1829:
1746:
1715:
1674:
1588:
1537:
1329:
1314:
1253:
1198:
1133:
1095:
1075:
1064:
1044:
1019:
996:
918:
868:
833:
785:
764:
728:
516:
447:
415:
1800:
957:
940:
932:
890:
852:
585:
1804:
1427:
1052:
799:
768:
709:
697:
650:
638:
551:
483:
361:
118:
102:
90:
1714:
I'm glad to have done so. I hope you'll be able to endorse inclusion at some point
1372:
760:
428:
395:
283:
265:
1884:
Hi David - I've temporarily moved your addition out. What problem will it solve?
1845:
1944:
User_talk:HisSpaceResearch/Archive_5#New_policy_proposal_that_may_be_of_interest
1824:
1493:
1272:
This article was already marked as a rejected proposal clear back in April 2008
978:
692:
the subjectivity out of it. That AfD you mentioned could easily be brought to
1121:
as very recent crimes will be given articles, but older ones are unlikely to.-
670:
499:
985:
982:
667:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Murder of Jana Shearer (2nd nomination)
1445:
1091:
1060:
992:
864:
781:
442:
1934:
User_talk:AuburnPilot/Archive_4#New_policy_proposal_that_may_be_of_interest
1846:
_no_consensus" title="Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (criminal acts)": -->
1059:
argues strongly against having a biographical article in almost all cases.
1055:, etc. On the other hand, for victims who are still living, I think that
2064:
15:33, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:HisSpaceResearch/Archive 5
1423:
601:
about the criminal he/she should have an article too. No, its about the
479:
1959:
User_talk:Wisdom89/Archive_5#New_policy_proposal_that_may_be_of_interest
802:
for instance is notable for nothing more than a single event, and fails
1954:
User_talk:Wehwalt/Archive_1#New_policy_proposal_that_may_be_of_interest
1939:
User_talk:Gwynand/Archive_1#New_policy_proposal_that_may_be_of_interest
1462:
the institution (e.g., a university or a museum) affected by the crime,
588:(and makes a good point - high profile crimes get news coverage =: -->
977:
biography. (For example, although I haven't read them, I notice that
2079:
15:30, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy
2055:
15:35, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:24.124.109.67 (top)
2022:
15:44, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Cougar Draven (top)
1929:“Advertising efforts” of those editors who responded on this page:
360:. This guideline should save much controversy. Good work Fritzpoll!
166:
because this can be analogous to past tiresome disputes regarding
2073:
15:31, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Damicatz/Archive 1
1763:. I was just curious whether you support the article be renamed.
1223:
notable because they are news - if an article that is newsworthy
575:
guideline is the solution, as you've stated. Our guidelines are
571:
I've thought about this overnight, Jayron, and I don't believe a
2046:
15:37, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
2040:
15:38, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mikehelms (top)
1968:
16:05, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Sceptre/Archive44
798:
2) absolutely, there would not be articles with those titles.
142:. If we need another guideline, we'll make another guideline.
2082:
15:29, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Star Mississippi
1517:
897:
in determining if the people involved deserve articles (Quote:
2091:
15:28, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:BlueAg09 (ce)
2052:
15:36, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Kintetsubuffalo
2043:
15:38, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Editorofthewiki
1536:
Thank you - anything to give this the widest possible airing.
1468:
the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator (if otherwise notable),
2007:
15:46, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:MurderWatcher1
1974:
16:02, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Edmund Patrick
1995:
15:50, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Malik Shabazz
2028:
15:42, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:AuburnPilot
2070:
15:31, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jennavecia
2058:
15:33, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Biruitorul
2034:
15:41, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:LoverOfArt
2019:
15:44, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dougie WII
2001:
15:49, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:OldakQuill
2061:
15:33, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dysepsion
2076:
15:30, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Remember
2037:
15:39, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Reywas92
2025:
15:43, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:A Nobody
2010:
15:46, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Cheeser1
1998:
15:49, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dhartung
1992:
15:50, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Resolute
1983:
15:51, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Wisdom89
1924:
1692:
1273:
2085:
15:29, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tlogmer
2049:
15:37, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Scanlan
2031:
15:41, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gwynand
2016:
15:45, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Wehwalt
2013:
15:45, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:John254
1520:, to help bring this discussion to a larger audience.
1192:, notability, once established is never lost, but per
414:, seems like a sensible and well thought-out policy.
2004:
15:48, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:JohnCD
1980:
15:52, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Edison
1971:
16:02, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Cxz111
1293:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability (law enforcement agencies)
589:
reliable sources.) The other camp says "Delete" per
1989:
15:51, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Quale
1977:
15:52, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rooot
1276:
593:. And rightfully, as the news coverage is about an
2067:
15:32, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:WWGB
1986:
15:51, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Deor
633:. Several others. And now, a place is needed for
427:. Knowledge (XXG) definitely needs this guideline.
917:tightening - it is, after all, a work in progress
1587:I've already popped a one-liner on the talk page
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (criminal acts)
1289:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (political parties)
8:
1151:: on the grounds that crimes, by and large,
877:People primarily known as victims of crimes
299:Seems to be a worthwhile guideline applying
1552:How about also including the discussion at
885:- note in the proposal that it states that
1778:The key thing regarding article titles is
1285:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (living things)
635:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (criminal acts)
29:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (criminal acts)
1695:alleviates the concerns I had. Thanks! -
1275:Canvasing was involved in this poll, see
1232:- and in fact that's the whole reason we
47:your endorsement or opposition. Thanks!--
1297:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (news events)
550:and I think you may have something... --
912:The purpose of this proposed guideline
264:concerns without contradicting either.
623:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics)
1484:Additionally, I'm not sure the title
7:
811:not be excluded as was your concern.
70:, please provide your opinion here.
1459:the place where the crime occurred,
543:Knowledge (XXG):Writing about crime
1465:the victim (if otherwise notable),
631:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (films)
627:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books)
24:
1444:that type of crime (for example,
1281:Knowledge (XXG):Instruction creep
776:. 4) In my opinion, the focus of
282:AfD's concerning crime victims.--
1277:#Canvasing.2FAdvertising_efforts
669:. I think the recent ones, i.e.
605:And then bunches and bunches of
358:abject nobodies who get murdered
2146:Not for me to judge, I fear.
1450:List of school-related attacks
328:, as there have been fears of
1:
2156:00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
2142:00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
2125:23:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
2104:23:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1920:Despite “advertising efforts”
1916:Canvasing/Advertising efforts
1516:. I've added this discussion
1422:crime with the victim's name.
1358:04:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
1338:23:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1323:23:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1308:22:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
541:, perhaps converting this to
525:11:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
1490:Notability (crime incidents)
213:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
87:exact same arguments appear
2174:
1859:16:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
1844:"Reactivated". Please see
1839:15:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1768:02:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
1755:01:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
1741:01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
1724:16:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1710:16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1683:10:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1660:18:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1597:16:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1583:16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1546:16:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1530:16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1502:20:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1486:Notability (criminal acts)
1432:01:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1415:01:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1381:23:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1128:05:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
842:21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
790:00:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
737:10:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
717:18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
687:18:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
658:15:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
615:lots of heat, and no light
567:00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
470:18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
453:19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
437:16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
419:12:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
388:14:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
341:22:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
334:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
317:16:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
292:18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
274:16:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
256:19:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
235:16:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
218:16:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
202:Strong endorse and support
197:16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
155:11:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
127:00:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
110:00:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
31:be adopted as a guideline?
1818:Lack of discussion =: -->
1813:17:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
1074:been made, if that's ok?
370:17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
350:an article about an event
1908:01:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
1894:00:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
1879:00:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
1732:What is your opinion on
1622:00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
1262:10:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
1247:08:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
1207:10:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
1178:03:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
1142:12:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
1100:03:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
1084:10:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
1069:03:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
1028:15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
1001:15:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
927:12:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
873:04:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
508:09:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
491:14:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
57:01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
1366:Suggested improvements?
823:standards are not met.
1964:All users canvassed:
1796:
1761:Captain Midnight (HBO)
1197:with it. Best wishes
138:must be balanced with
1785:
1556:to get a wider view?
1759:I am sorry. I meant
1635:Disappearance of XYZ
1279:This policy is more
819:would be sufficient?
170:inclusion criteria.
1838:_no_consensus": -->
404:2008-04-26T20:36Z (
1454:Options backdating
607:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
66:, and its related
64:guideline proposal
1788:Phillipa Floppula
1707:
1657:
1639:Kidnapping of XYZ
1578:
1573:
1410:
1405:
1348:Removed comment.
1161:historical events
968:, and especially
851:policies such as
713:
678:
654:
564:
558:
537:style guide like
354:coatrack articles
330:instruction creep
223:Endorse inclusion
192:
187:
106:
77:Endorse inclusion
2165:
1734:Captain Midnight
1705:
1702:
1699:
1655:
1652:
1649:
1577:
1571:
1567:
1561:
1522:SynergeticMaggot
1409:
1403:
1399:
1393:
1125:
714:
711:
706:
700:
674:
655:
652:
647:
641:
562:
556:
531:Oppose inclusion
450:
445:
227:SynergeticMaggot
216:
214:
191:
185:
181:
175:
160:Suppport/Endorse
107:
104:
99:
93:
2173:
2172:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2164:
2163:
2162:
1918:
1867:
1851:Fuhghettaboutit
1847:this discussion
1821:
1745:In what sense?
1700:
1697:
1650:
1647:
1630:
1581:
1572:
1569:
1559:
1510:
1437:articles about:
1413:
1404:
1401:
1391:
1368:
1123:
1049:Matthew Shepard
893:, it defers to
710:
704:
698:
694:deletion review
685:
651:
645:
639:
611:WP:IDONTLIKEITs
533:
448:
443:
380:Fuhghettaboutit
254:
251:r e s e a r c h
212:
210:
195:
186:
183:
173:
103:
97:
91:
79:
49:Fuhghettaboutit
33:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2171:
2169:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2128:
2127:
2093:
2092:
2089:
2086:
2083:
2080:
2077:
2074:
2071:
2068:
2065:
2062:
2059:
2056:
2053:
2050:
2047:
2044:
2041:
2038:
2035:
2032:
2029:
2026:
2023:
2020:
2017:
2014:
2011:
2008:
2005:
2002:
1999:
1996:
1993:
1990:
1987:
1984:
1981:
1978:
1975:
1972:
1969:
1962:
1961:
1956:
1951:
1946:
1941:
1936:
1917:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1866:
1865:Added material
1863:
1862:
1861:
1820:
1816:
1792:John Q. Killer
1784:
1783:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1686:
1685:
1667:
1629:
1628:Article titles
1626:
1625:
1624:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1568:
1564:
1549:
1548:
1533:
1532:
1509:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1482:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1472:
1469:
1466:
1463:
1460:
1457:
1439:
1438:
1434:
1418:
1417:
1400:
1396:
1384:
1383:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1325:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1213:aren't notable
1146:
1145:
1144:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1045:Kitty Genovese
1032:
1031:
1030:
974:
910:
820:
812:
796:
765:Ronald Goldman
741:
740:
739:
719:
681:
676:TRAVELLINGCARI
662:
661:
660:
613:show up. And
532:
529:
528:
527:
510:
493:
472:
455:
439:
422:
409:
390:
375:Strong support
372:
343:
319:
294:
276:
258:
248:
237:
220:
199:
182:
178:
157:
140:WP:NOT#ANARCHY
129:
112:
78:
75:
73:
60:
32:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2170:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2140:
2137:
2134:
2130:
2129:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2113:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2101:
2097:
2090:
2087:
2084:
2081:
2078:
2075:
2072:
2069:
2066:
2063:
2060:
2057:
2054:
2051:
2048:
2045:
2042:
2039:
2036:
2033:
2030:
2027:
2024:
2021:
2018:
2015:
2012:
2009:
2006:
2003:
2000:
1997:
1994:
1991:
1988:
1985:
1982:
1979:
1976:
1973:
1970:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1960:
1957:
1955:
1952:
1950:
1947:
1945:
1942:
1940:
1937:
1935:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1927:
1925:
1922:
1915:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1835:
1831:
1826:
1817:
1815:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1795:
1793:
1789:
1781:
1777:
1776:
1769:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1739:
1736:, Fritzpoll?
1735:
1731:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1708:
1703:
1694:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1671:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1658:
1653:
1642:
1640:
1636:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1614:69.140.152.55
1611:
1607:
1604:
1603:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1579:
1574:
1563:
1562:
1555:
1551:
1550:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1534:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1512:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1480:
1479:
1473:
1470:
1467:
1464:
1461:
1458:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1435:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1420:
1419:
1416:
1411:
1406:
1395:
1394:
1386:
1385:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1369:
1365:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1231:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1195:
1191:
1186:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1126:
1120:
1115:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1090:Ok. Thanks.
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1053:Brandon Teena
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1004:
1003:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
983:
980:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
929:
928:
924:
920:
915:
911:
908:
904:
901:) preventing
900:
896:
892:
888:
884:
880:
876:
875:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
839:
835:
830:
826:
821:
818:
813:
809:
805:
801:
800:Laci Peterson
797:
793:
792:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
770:
769:Laci Peterson
766:
762:
757:
753:
749:
745:
742:
738:
734:
730:
725:
720:
718:
715:
707:
701:
695:
690:
689:
688:
684:
683:Tell me yours
680:
677:
672:
668:
663:
659:
656:
648:
642:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
587:
583:
578:
574:
570:
569:
568:
565:
559:
553:
549:
544:
540:
535:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
511:
509:
505:
501:
497:
494:
492:
489:
485:
481:
476:
473:
471:
467:
463:
459:
456:
454:
451:
446:
440:
438:
434:
430:
426:
423:
420:
417:
413:
410:
407:
403:
400:
397:
394:
391:
389:
385:
381:
376:
373:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
344:
342:
339:
336:. Thank you.
335:
331:
327:
323:
320:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
295:
293:
289:
285:
280:
277:
275:
271:
267:
262:
259:
257:
253:
252:
247:
246:
241:
238:
236:
232:
228:
224:
221:
219:
215:
207:
203:
200:
198:
193:
188:
177:
176:
169:
165:
161:
158:
156:
153:
152:
147:
146:
141:
137:
133:
130:
128:
124:
120:
116:
113:
111:
108:
100:
94:
88:
84:
81:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
65:
59:
58:
54:
50:
46:
42:
38:
30:
26:
19:
2111:
2094:
1963:
1928:
1919:
1868:
1825:User: Stifle
1822:
1819:no consensus
1797:
1791:
1787:
1786:
1669:
1643:
1631:
1605:
1558:
1513:
1489:
1485:
1390:
1233:
1230:right result
1229:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1041:Perpetrators
1011:
988:
913:
898:
886:
878:
828:
761:J. D. Tippit
743:
723:
679:
675:
618:
614:
602:
598:
594:
581:
576:
572:
512:
495:
474:
457:
424:
411:
392:
374:
349:
345:
321:
296:
278:
260:
249:
243:
239:
222:
201:
172:
159:
150:
144:
131:
114:
86:
82:
72:
61:
37:the proposal
34:
27:RfC: Should
2136:Will Beback
1900:David in DC
1871:David in DC
1780:WP:COATRACK
1610:WP:MEMORIAL
1239:CastorQuinn
1194:WP:NOT#NEWS
1185:WP:NOT#NEWS
1170:CastorQuinn
1037:WP:NOT#NEWS
979:J.D. Tippit
970:WP:NOT#NEWS
861:WP:NOT#NEWS
825:WP:NOT#NEWS
817:WP:MEMORIAL
778:WP:NOT#NEWS
752:WP:NOT#NEWS
582:conflicting
301:WP:NOT#NEWS
1691:Your edit
1165:historical
989:Britannica
907:WP:NOTNEWS
712:Disclaimer
671:Eve Carson
653:Disclaimer
462:will381796
326:Notability
105:Disclaimer
2148:Fritzpoll
2117:Fritzpoll
1886:Fritzpoll
1830:Fritzpoll
1747:Fritzpoll
1716:Fritzpoll
1675:Fritzpoll
1589:Fritzpoll
1538:Fritzpoll
1446:Art theft
1330:Fritzpoll
1315:Fritzpoll
1254:Fritzpoll
1199:Fritzpoll
1159:are, and
1155:notable,
1134:Fritzpoll
1119:Recentism
1076:Fritzpoll
1020:Fritzpoll
919:Fritzpoll
834:Fritzpoll
729:Fritzpoll
517:Nrswanson
416:Lankiveil
168:WP:SCHOOL
68:talk page
41:talk page
1805:Jdcooper
1560:Wisdom89
1508:Comments
1392:Wisdom89
1190:WP:NTEMP
1057:WP:BLP1E
883:WP:BLP1E
804:WP:BLP1E
756:WP:BLP1E
591:WP:BLP1E
563:contribs
552:Jayron32
362:Jdcooper
305:WP:BLP1E
174:Wisdom89
164:WP:CREEP
136:WP:CREEP
119:Sbowers3
1670:notable
1606:Comment
1373:Wehwalt
1124:gadfium
949:WP:NPOV
573:writing
513:Endorse
496:Endorse
475:Endorse
458:Endorse
429:Kaldari
425:Support
412:Endorse
393:Endorse
346:Endorse
322:Endorse
297:Endorse
284:Wehwalt
279:Endorse
266:Gwynand
261:Endorse
240:Endorse
132:Endorse
115:Endorse
83:Endorse
45:!voting
1765:Kushal
1738:Kushal
1698:auburn
1648:auburn
1554:WP:AfD
1494:Orlady
1157:people
1153:aren't
1149:Oppose
1016:WP:BRD
1008:WP:BIO
966:WP:NOT
962:WP:BIO
953:WP:BIO
947:, and
945:WP:NOR
937:WP:BIO
903:WP:BIO
895:WP:BIO
879:should
859:, and
857:WP:BIO
808:WP:BIO
774:WP:BLP
767:, and
748:WP:BIO
744:Oppose
699:Keeper
640:Keeper
637:. ---
603:crime.
548:WP:WAF
539:WP:WAF
338:Kushal
92:Keeper
39:, its
2112:after
2096:travb
1701:pilot
1651:pilot
1452:, or
1350:travb
1300:travb
795:AfDs.
619:sigh.
595:event
500:Kevin
309:Chuck
245:h i s
151:melon
145:Happy
16:<
2152:talk
2133:·:·
2121:talk
2100:talk
1904:talk
1890:talk
1875:talk
1855:talk
1834:talk
1809:talk
1801:WP:N
1751:talk
1720:talk
1706:talk
1693:here
1679:talk
1656:talk
1618:talk
1593:talk
1542:talk
1526:talk
1518:here
1514:Note
1498:talk
1492:? --
1428:talk
1377:talk
1354:talk
1334:talk
1319:talk
1304:talk
1258:talk
1243:talk
1234:have
1225:also
1221:only
1217:both
1203:talk
1174:talk
1138:talk
1096:talk
1092:BRMo
1080:talk
1065:talk
1061:BRMo
1024:talk
1012:main
997:talk
993:BRMo
984:and
960:and
958:WP:N
941:WP:V
935:and
933:WP:N
923:talk
891:WP:N
869:talk
865:BRMo
853:WP:N
838:talk
786:talk
782:BRMo
733:talk
609:AND
586:WP:N
557:talk
521:talk
504:talk
466:talk
433:talk
384:talk
366:talk
313:talk
288:talk
270:talk
231:talk
206:many
123:talk
53:talk
2139:·:·
1641:).
1637:or
1424:Kww
951:.
806:or
724:all
708:|
702:|
649:|
643:|
629:.
625:.
577:not
480:Lar
444:sho
406:UTC
402:der
399:gin
101:|
95:|
2154:)
2123:)
2102:)
1906:)
1892:)
1877:)
1857:)
1849:--
1836:)
1811:)
1753:)
1722:)
1681:)
1620:)
1595:)
1575:/
1544:)
1528:)
1500:)
1456:),
1448:,
1430:)
1407:/
1379:)
1356:)
1336:)
1321:)
1306:)
1295:,
1291:,
1287:,
1260:)
1245:)
1205:)
1176:)
1140:)
1098:)
1082:)
1067:)
1051:,
1047:,
1026:)
999:)
943:,
925:)
914:is
871:)
855:,
840:)
788:)
763:,
754:,
750:,
735:)
705:76
646:76
599:is
523:)
506:)
482::
478:++
468:)
435:)
386:)
368:)
315:)
303:,
290:)
272:)
233:)
209:--
189:/
134:-
125:)
98:76
55:)
2150:(
2119:(
2098:(
1902:(
1888:(
1873:(
1853:(
1832:(
1807:(
1749:(
1718:(
1677:(
1616:(
1591:(
1580:)
1570:T
1565:(
1540:(
1524:(
1496:(
1426:(
1412:)
1402:T
1397:(
1375:(
1352:(
1332:(
1317:(
1302:(
1256:(
1241:(
1201:(
1172:(
1136:(
1094:(
1078:(
1063:(
1022:(
995:(
921:(
909:.
867:(
836:(
784:(
731:(
560:.
554:.
519:(
502:(
488:c
486:/
484:t
464:(
449:y
431:(
421:.
408:)
396:Z
382:(
364:(
311:(
286:(
268:(
229:(
194:)
184:T
179:(
148:‑
121:(
51:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.