Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime: Difference between revisions

Line 9: Line 9:

==Crime==

<!– New AFD’s should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line –>

{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assassination_of_Saif_al-Islam_Gaddafi}}

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace “PageName” with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Crime|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Crime. For the other XfD’s, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia’s deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

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

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

The article has only two very short paragraphs on the actual assassination; everything else is background. This article is an unneeded and redundant WP:CFORK with information that can be easily folded into the biography article. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Information is being withheld by the Libyan government(s). JaxsonR (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hard oppose This is a public official, who mind you in 2021, had more of a chance of winning then all candidates. And also, as @JaxsonR stated, information is currently being withheld from the public, it might have been politically motivated, may have been not.

Either way, this is a notable candidate that just got assassinated, and should be kept. shane (talk to me if you want!) 00:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now – A notable assassination of a political figure, of equal or greater notability than the Assassination of Miguel Uribe Turbay, which has its own article. As this event occurred the day before it was nominated for deletion, and given that an investigation was opened less than 24 hours ago, it is understandable that there is a scarcity of information on the assassination itself. It would be better to wait and revisit this AfD if the article remains in its current state after some time has passed. —Leviavery (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bio of an interesting but non notable fraudster. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional sources since nom.BabbaQ (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

The concern here is POV with potentially harmful statements for a living person. It is appropriately sourced, and perhaps sufficiently objective to warrant inclusion (given the sourcing). However, the Swedish article from which it was translated has been deleted, and there have been no changes since close to its creation date. Convictions are demonstrated, but they are minor. The relevant criteria are WP:NCRIME and WP:NBIO. Klbrain (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

A public domestic violence prevention campaign from 2011, appears to have folded quite quickly. Despite the categories, not an organisation. No secondary sources since creation 15 years ago. Fails WP:GNG. WP:PROD tag removed by creator in 2011 without addressing notability concerns. AusLondonder (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. AusLondonder (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing found, only this mention on the government website [2]. Doesn’t meet notability, lack of sourcing as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I can find are government-affiliated. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete brief, long since ended campaign, and though if notable once, notable always, it wasn’t really ever a WP:SIGCOV pass from what is publicly available. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 18:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn’t seem to meet WP:EVENT, specifically WP:LASTING. It is mentioned in most articles about the 2023 Japan military facility shooting, but otherwise I’m not sure this is a notable event on its own. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The jawiki article mentions a section in a book about it, “参考資料村野薫執筆「訓練自衛官の小銃乱射“同志”殺害事件」、事件・犯罪研究会編『明治・大正・昭和　事件・犯罪大事典』、東京法経学院出版、1986年、155-156頁、NDLJP:11896699/84。 ” “The Incident of a Trainee Self-Defense Force Member’s Rifle Shooting and Killing of a ‘Comrade”, which appears to be from a scholarly book [3], and an extended edition of the same in “Encyclopedia of Incidents and Crimes in the Meiji, Taisho, Showa, and Heisei Periods” in 2002. I do not have NDL access but through search terms could verify this section with that title is there. This plus the extended coverage is enough for a keep imo, scholarly coverage and extended news coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

While there was a lot of speculation about motives around her death, in the end this does not appear to have been a notable murder case, nor is there evidence of notability for Chandani herself. Star Mississippi 02:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, Hinduism, and Pakistan. Star Mississippi 02:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks lasting coverage. Found mentions in these two papers[4][5], but nothing more. Unfortunately, such crimes happen fairly regularly. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep (meant to write “Keep”, corrected, my mistake) for the nature of the event, sources do appear to actually indicate that whether “such crimes happen fairly regularly” or not, this one resulted in enough WP:SIGCOV to retain this article. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 18:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can you clarify your !vote please @Iljhgtn? You wrote delete, but the text that followed seems to imply a keep. Star Mississippi 19:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)~~Resolved. No worries, we’ve all done that. Just wanted to be sure it was assessed correctly by the closer. Star Mississippi 00:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, just a brain fart. Fixed it. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meets notability as the subject is a widely reported case with significant coverage from multiple independent, secondary sources such as NDTV, India Today, Hindustan Times with sustained national and international reporting beyond routine news. The case involved a judicial inquiry ordered by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, public protests and the issues raised in the “improvement” blurb(?) relate to cleanup and article quality rather than notability, which per WP:ATD, WP:EVENT, and WP:NOTNEWS is not a valid reason for deletion. SeldomSeldom (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NCRIME. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Russia. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor event. ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete swaths of uncited content and it’s just nothing big happened there. ~2026-46545-8 (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the Russian article [6] (which is a GA) there appears to be quite a lot of notability proving coverage, which seems a fairly clear WP:NEVENT pass. There are multiple academic articles about this case and its aftermath [7] [8] for a few of the multiple they link, plus years of retrospective news. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this had substantial legal impact and resulted in a change in Russian federal law, which was covered in a bunch of sources. Additionally the shooting is why the movement the perpetrator was in was designated as a prohibited / terrorist movement in Russia. That is a pretty significant WP:EFFECT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian article is FA? Did I wrongly see that? SatnaamIN (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per sourcing. Per WP:GNG. Per above rationale.BabbaQ (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PARAKANYAA. The attack received academic coverage and impacted Russian legislation. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A simple Google Search yields enough news coverage. Further PARAKANYAA demonstrated legitimate region to keep. The article should be improved per sourcing presented in the Russian Article. —SatnaamIN (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google Search yields enough news coverage is not a valid reason to keep an article. The notability guideline for events has various requirements beyond receiving “news coverage” for an event to be notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above additional inputs by PARAKANYAA. SatnaamIN (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read them to confirm there’s SIGCOV? The first one is 172 pages and @PARAKANYAA didn’t provide page numbers. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On that, if you could please provide page numbers, I’d appreciate it, PARAKANYAA. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole chapter on it, pages 66-70, “Columbine in Ivanteyevka”, at least, which is entirely about this attack and its consequences. I think there is more scattered throughout the book but the OCR on the copy I have is nonfunctional, and I would call 4 pages in a book sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. I’ll take a look. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources and reasoning provided by PARAKANYAA. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is mentioned 2017 in Russia page, with countrywide significance. It meets WP:NOTABILITY for events and is already integrated into other articles, so it should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeldomSeldom (talk • contribs) 04:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Being “mentioned at 2017 in Russia” is not a reason for keeping. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough coverage to merit a WP:LASTING impact and meets WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply