Please visit the opinions subpage to offer your endorsement or opposition to this proposed notability guideline.

---

Contents 1 Please see this subpage to voice your opinion on making this part of the Notability guideline 2 Archived discussion 3 Proposal 4 Deference to WP:BIO 5 Is this the right place? 6 Perpetrators section 7 Lauren Burk 8 Unusual crime 9 This page in a nutshell 10 Non-criminal events? 11 Move to project space 12 WP:NOT#NEWS 13 Tightened notability criteria 14 Should be included in WO:BIO 15 Should explain that details of crime don't matter 16 My thoughts 17 Reverted edits by JzG 18 Grace period 19 Questionably criminal events 20 Trial 21 Creep 22 Notability criteria for Court cases/Trials? 23 Seems like too much, BLP1E is for this - what about Jesse James? 24 3.2 Inclusion of biographical information 25 Time to end the prohibition on biographies of people known for one event? 26 Lack of discussion => no consensus 27 New paragraph suggested to perpatrators Section 28 "Why is this here? Can't we just use WP:NOT#NEWS or some other guideline" - a rationale 29 AfD for a biographical article on a criminal act 30 Serial Killers 31 How to title murder articles 32 What happened? 33 Political violence 34 Proposed naming change 35 Executed Criminals in the United States 36 Are individuals who are judicially executed inherently notable? 36.1 Yes 36.2 No 36.3 Neutral 36.4 Comments 37 Criminals and WP:BLP1E 38 Can we get better examples? 39 Introduction to perp section

[edit] Please see this subpage to voice your opinion on making this part of the Notability guideline

Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions to do exactly that, voice your opinion via endorsement, or suggestions for improvement, for this subsection of the notability guidelines.

---

[edit] Archived discussion

The proposal has now matured sufficiently for a wider debate - I have hived off the existing discussion that got us to where we were at this page. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I took a day or so off, and came back to re-read your proposal. There is one thing wrong / misleading in the way that it is presented. You list the following breakdown: (1) when the victim is otherwise notable, the victim can get an article ... (2) when the perpetrator is otherwise notable, the perpetrator can get an article. And you do not address the key issue of what happens when either party is not notable independent of this one event / crime. Which, if you recall, is what prompted this whole discussion / process to begin with. Yes, it is somewhat buried in the next section called "how to title an article" ... but that is misleading. Your categories might be: (1) the victim is otherwise notable, by policy we do such and such; (2) the perpetrator is otherwise notable, by policy we do such and such; and ADD IN (3) when neither is notable independent of this one crime event, by policy we do such and such. It's a more logical outline, and more conducive to the discussion. Your current outline discusses #1 and then #2 ... skips #3 altogether ... and then goes into the minutiae of how to correctly label an article (in which #3 is buried almost as an after-thought). And #3 is the very core and essence of these contentious debates! The whole idea / question is ... what do we do when someone is not really notable, except when they become some victim of a random crime and their story dominates the news ( ... i.e., the #3 category) ...? Please re-structure to address this missing component. I mean, it's buried in there --- just make it more visible and vital to the outline. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

I think you lost something from the first paragraph, so I moved it down to below the heading regarding articles on participants. I think the section now covers all three cases, and suggests that biography articles are only created when the participant is notable for something else -Fritzpoll (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I am thinking about all this. Do we even need the #1 and the #2 category at all? If they are otherwise notable, they are getting a Wiki article anyway. So, what is the point of the #1 and #2 category at all? If either (victim / perpetrator) is already independently notable, there is no debate that they merit an article. Why re-create / repeat that policy already in place? It is #3 that we are really here to try to decipher. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

A good point, but there are more criteria for inclusion for perpetrators of crime that are proposed. As such I didn't want to imply that they don't get their own article if they are also criminals. Just seemed...neater, somehow. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deference to WP:BIO

This guideline defers to WP:BIO in regard to individual notability for victims and criminals. I (and I expect other editors as well) am uncomfortable with such broad inclusion in that almost any heinous crime will involve some sources discussing the victim's life in detail. I think a stricter rule than BIO for victims may be in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you prefer the criteria for inclusion further down the page? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but it isn't that relevant given that the part above allows them separate articles just based on BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I will edit the guideline to reflect this Fritzpoll (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it now? Fritzpoll (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this the right place?

Should I leave it here in my userspace, or would it be better if moved to, say Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)? Fritzpoll (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perpetrators section

There are generaly two people involved in any criminal act: the perpetrator and the victim. Regardless of how we may feel about the perpetrator, he/she is the only one covered under our very stringent guideline called biography of living persons. Unfortunately, unless the crime did not involve death of the victim, the victim by definition is not covered under BLP (L stands for living). I would feel much better about this proposal if/when the perpetrator section was updated to include some very strong wording/warnings regarding anybody that is only an alleged perpetrator v. someone that is found guilty in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty is crucial here. I personally find it incredibly distasteful to start an article about a "cold blooded killer" until that person's respective trial is completed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree about the latter - could you perhaps add the text yourself? Otherwise I'll look like some form of dictator! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Who am I kidding? :) I scribbled out a paragraph based on your comments, and would appreciate feedback. But do feel free to edit the article yourself! Would it make it easier for people to edit this if it were in project space rather than user space? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Cold-blooded killing" and such stuff as that does not belong in wikipedia. "Just the facts, Sir or Madam." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Same concerns about convictions. One recent (Dec) to-do I was involved in was about Martha Stewart. It was claimed that reporting her well-publisized conviction was against BLP! Perhaps, it could be included that a felony conviction is presumed to be notable, IF the person already has an article. Another recent discussion was about Boris Berezhovsky. There his trials can't take place until he returns to Russia. Here I'd say that the most notable accusations can be included. In short I think that the guideline proposal should make clear that convictions are important for establishing notablity, and fleeing justice may be similarly interpreted. Thanks. Smallbones (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with reporting in a neutral fashion any criminal charges and the outcome of same.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Burk

I have posted a reference to this page on the deletion-request page for Lauren Burk and invited participants there to comment here. These are similar media-driven stories. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue with me, let's discuss it in a human manner. Don't take a heavy handed approach while hiding behind others. At least you have the courtesy to open your discussion page to edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.210.167 (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The above was presumably addressed to me, but is too vague to make any sense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual crime

I think one of the dividing lines for inclusion should be the commonness of the crime. Someone getting killed and the perpetrator caught a few days later happens all to often to be notable enough for inclusion. While someone disappearing with controversy surrounding the investigation and suspects and the case dragging on for years doesn't happen often and therefore is more notable. Stated at WP:BIO: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." If something like this isn't included in the proposed policy somewhere I feel most articles will just come in conflict between it WP:ONEEVENT. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So how can we vaguely quantify this? Is it to do with the amount of media coverage happening over a significant period of time? The reason the guideline currently stipulates coverage at a national or global level is that I assumed (perhaps rashly) that the type of crime you describe would only receive local coverage, and this would help exclude it. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that does cover most of it just not cases of MWWS as well as people that are tied to celebrities through one event. Though, I can't think of a real way quantify it, we would need some very specific wording on it. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this will be the crux of the problem. This guideline will prevent biographical articles of victims, and hopefully guide the content to reflect that, sad as it is, the victim is not notable. I'm wary of trying to be overprescriptive in words, and I think more participation is needed because I'm not certain a consensus yet exists on these matter, especially inclusion of MWWS articles - Fritzpoll (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's certain that there isn't consensus on these kinds of subjects as the Burk and Carson AFDs show but participation can only help the issue. I'm rather new at the policy discussing, but I will try. This was just the first thing to come to my mind. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 11:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree--what aspects of a crime make it unusual or not are highly subjective and will be hotly argued in an AFD, leaving us back where we are now. To use Eve Carson as an example, those who support inclusion would argue that the murder of a student body president at a major university is highly uncommon, while those favoring deletion would argue that that is not a relevant criterion. I favor a criterion more like what is currently there, "mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope." While one might argue that the media give undue weight to certain events (and frankly I'd agree with this), at least it's a more objective standard, and closer to the general notability guideline. Chuck (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go. The core of the deletionist arguments appear to be "I don't care what USAToday and CNN think, I don't think it's notable." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right Chuck, but I feel the difference in subjectivity wouldn't be much. When I was thinking usual I was thinking along the lines of the criminal act itself rather then the subjects. Like an odd/novel way to rob a bank. Maybe a distinction could be made between murders and other crimes. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 11:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Chuck and Baseball Bugs say above. Ultimately, we let others (reliable sources) determine what is / is not notable. (That's their job, not ours.) Then, we write it up. Whether or not we agree with the notability conferred upon an event by reliable sources is another issue altogether. We cannot say "Well, all of the major news media consider this notable, but I disagree with their assessment." That is the height of pomposity and the very opposite of objectivity. All of these contentious debates (Eve Carson, Lauren Burk, Jessie Davis, etc.) pretty much boil down to that argument. "Yes, it's all over the news, but I don't agree that it should be!" Well, who cares what you think? If it's made to be notable, then it's notable ... regardless of whether or not you agree. And regardless of how/who/when such notability was conferred. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] This page in a nutshell

I've boldly added a "this page in a nutshell" section. I'm not particularly tied to the wording, though, so have at it! Chuck (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it! :) A good summary Fritzpoll (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the nutshell is representative of the proposal, I gladly support it in any voting. Kushal 22:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-criminal events?

Just a thought--it seems to me like this guideline might be well-applied to some non-criminal events as well, but I'm not sure whether the guideline is easily rewritten to accommodate these without becoming excessively wordy. Possible examples:

• A widely reported and covered missing person case, where the disappearance did not involve a crime (or where it's unclear whether the disappearance is the result of a crime).
• A widely reported suicide. (I was going to use Bud Dwyer as an example here, but after reading the article he'd probably be notable due to the scandal even without his suicide. Still, one can imagine a highly-publicized suicide of an otherwise unnotable person to which this guideline might apply.)
• A widely reported fatal but non-criminal accident.

Thoughts? Chuck (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to rewrite this to accomodate this point of view. This would essentially become "Notability (isolated incidents)", presumably? I don't think there's a justification at present for such an all-encompassing guideline, whereas the AfDs demonstrates that there is a problem that needs to be solved in the criminal domain. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I don't think we need to encompass every scenario that may occur. In the examples cited above, missing persons cases usually wind up being criminal cases ... whether or not an official suspect is criminally charged. I mean, think about it, how often does someone go "missing", really? The Drew Peterson case is a good case. The wife is merely missing ... but certainly there is grave criminal suspicion and the police/public are operating under the assumption that she met with a crime. It would be a rare case that someone really is "missing". Also, suicides are crimes anyway. And a suicide would probably be only widely reported in the news if it were a notable person anyway, no? I can't imagine a non-notable person getting national news for a suicide? The third case (accident) would also get notable coverage on its own, I would imagine. So, yes, to keep things tight (and relevant), I think it's the criminal stuff that needs to be addressed at the moment. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Hmmmm. I actually can think of a non-notable person committing suicide, now that I think more about it. There was that guy (name?) who was ill and wanted to commit suicide and did so with the aid of Jack Kevorkian ... and I almost want to say that he made a video and it was broadcast on 20/20 or so? So, yes --- conceivably a non-notable person can commit a notable suicide. That is so rare, however. Crimes happen every day of the week ... and these contentious crime articles prompted Fritzpoll's policy proposal. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Also, can someone answer the question I keep asking - should this article be in project space rather than on my user page? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say keep it in your userspace until you are very satisfied with the wording on the page. It should be moved to Project space when it's ready to be judged/accepted/rejected/whatever by the community at large. If you think that's now, go for it! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move to project space

I plan to move this to project space over the weekend in an effort to garner more support from the community at large. Before then I would like to perform a quick proofread/copyedit, and cite a few more examples, a source for which I may have found over at the village pump. Any objections, get them in quick! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am content, as is. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Upon reading (and rereading), I also support a move to project space. It may still be rejected and or merged with other established guidelines, but it's time to move it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not experienced in this particular aspect of notability, and I haven't participated in any of the AfDs that are the subject of this proposed guideline; I've only become aware of this issue after having a somewhat tangential discussion with Baseball Bugs (disclaimer: I might not know what I'm talking about :) ). In any case, it seems to be a pretty reasonable guideline, and as an uninvolved party, support moving it into project space. How it turns out in the end is anyone's guess, but hopefully it will lead to consensus. Parsecboy (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one thing I've thought of. Maybe it would be a good idea to state in the proposed guideline that it's generally preferable (or perhaps required) to have sources other than Fox or CNN (and the like)? It appears that there are concerns that the stories some of these media outlets carry aren't always notable (like car chases in LA); this might help to allay some of these concerns. From my experience, print media is generally much less "info-tainment-y" than the 24-hour news channels. Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Those "concerns" are strictly personal opinions of the editors that have no basis in anything else. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT#NEWS

I'm sorry that I'm joining this discussion a little late. I think there's a very strong need for a guideline in this area and I hope a consensus can be achieved concerning these types of articles, but I'm afraid this guideline will fall short of the mark.

There was a discussion a few days ago concerning WP:NOT#NEWS, but I think it missed the point. Yes, that policy is intended to prevent articles about church socials and Powerball drawings, but the most important part — the first sentence — was glossed over:

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.

In today's 24-hour news environment, there's a need for news outlets to produce attention-getting stories that usually have no historic notability. In two years, or maybe even two weeks, few people outside the immediate family will remember the story.

The true difficulty is separating the wheat from the chaff. Unless a guideline can help editors distinguish between crime stories that are likely to gain traction and have historical notability and those that will be flashes in the pan, I'm afraid it may not be very helpful. I wish I could be more optimistic, because I really want to stop debating the same issues at AfD. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can this perhaps be done carefully by restricting the definition of notability? The guideline already limits scope to sources of national or global scope in an attempt to hold back a tide of local news stories. Further restrictions mght limit the effect you're talking about. I don't think this guideline will ever resolve all AfDs, but I think it can limit the scope of the discussion so that it is less polarised - in essence, there is suddenly a middle ground to argue on. With a debate necessarily limited in scope, consensus on individual articles may be easier to reach. What are your opinions on this? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I offer a suggestion? If the intention of this proposed guideline is to establish the notability of crimes that receive intense media attention, you may need to propose changing WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NTEMP.

On the other hand, if this proposed guideline is intended to complement current policy and guideline without contradicting them, I think this guideline should acknowledge them. I've drafted a short section that could be included after the section titled "Notability of criminal acts". Here's a very rough sketch of what it might say:

Historical notability

Editors should bear in mind that intense media coverage alone does not confer notability on a criminal act. Wikipedia policy requires editors to consider the "historical notability of persons and events" and its notability guideline suggests that a short burst of news reports about a criminal act does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability.

Editors should consider carefully whether today's news — even if it is the subject of national or global coverage — will be notable tomorrow.

I know that doesn't make this proposed guideline as straight-forward as it might otherwise be, but I think it acknowledges that the current policy and guideline still apply. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tricky one - there's clearly a need to acknowledge existing policy, and this is done in part by a link to WP:NOT#NEWS in the text. If it were to include a line relating to the "short-burst of coverage" issue (including relevant policy links), would this, in conjunction with the limitations of scope already made on the sourcing of information satisfy this issue without necessarily making the guideline over-prescriptive? Fritzpoll (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, this guideline would have changed my "vote" in past AFDs. I argued "delete" on the basis of WP:BIO1E. If this guidance had been in place I would have chosen "keep". I think most "delete" votes from other editors were on that same basis and I suspect that all would have switched to "keep". The notability of the event is usually not in question; it's just the issue of "one event". I applaud the author of this proposal for finding a way to reduce future controversy. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's nice feedback, thank you! :) Always good to know that I'm not just respouting existing policy! Fritzpoll (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't have anything against crime-related articles except that they seem to me to be contrary to current policy. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tightened notability criteria

I have made some potentially controversial additions to the "Notability of criminal acts" section, and would like some comments prior to moving to Project space. These additions have been driven by comments here and at the Village Pump. They may be too restrictive (or too wordy), but they're worth discussing Fritzpoll (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it; I do think having tighter criteria for sourcing will help defuse a lot of the problems with AfDs. It should give a reasonably clear "measuring stick" during these debates. Good work. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I like this addition as well and I feel it's good, not too restrictive or wordy. It states pretty clearly what's constitutes national coverage. Two very minor points, I think a stronger word than "implies" should be used in the second paragraph, something like requires/states/means/denotes/indicates. And in the third paragraph should avoid using the word independent coverage, some people may confuse that with independent sources. I think it's entirely plausible that a criminal act which gains national attention is tied to a news agency, while their coverage of that event would be independent of other news agencies it wouldn't be a independent source. Maybe a word like exclusive/separate/unique would do. Maybe I'm thinking way too much about it and I'm the only one who'd get confused by it. Despite those two things, I support moving to the project space. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 14:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made some adjustments per your comments, but I wasn't sure what you meant by your last statement. If you can clarify, or change the text yourself, feel free! Fritzpoll (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically I wanted to separate the word "Independent" with any word like coverage or report because it might confuse someone reading it as a synonym to "Independent source". Which has it's own meaning around here. At the same time I was trying to say that if criminal act is tied to a News Agency (large or small) it's own coverage of it shouldn't be applicable for the criterion. But I realize now that's just how WP:RS is going to interact with this policy and it doesn't need to be specifically stated. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 16:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha! I've left one use of independent in there, because I think it matches the Wiki definition, but I've changed the other to be explicitly "separately" although "individually" might be better...(agonises, then leaves it open for discussion). Thanks for the comments to my talk page too! - Fritzpoll (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me as it is now. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 16:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should be included in WO:BIO

While the advice given here appears reasonable, I think that a brief entry at WP:BIO and consideration in the Manual of Style are prefered solutions. There is no reason for adding yet another page to the already complicated notability infrastructure. I can see that the author is working with the best possible motivation here, but the unforseen consequences of WP:CREEP outweigh the benefit. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I did consider this, but there were reasons why I left it separate:

• It deals with a very specific class of articles, where a problem is easily identified (some examples given in the guideline - more can be supplied)
• WP:BIO is already complex and lengthy. Adding more to it would appear the violate the spirit of WP:CREEP, which is to prevent the increasing complexity of instructions
• To these ends, there is no need to confuse people reading WP:BIO by flooding it with suggestions that aren't relevant to most biographical articles

A standalone document allows the guideline to focus on a very specific set of problems, which will prevent instruction creep. By placing it in a general guideline, I think the temptation will be to expand its scope. I think the problem described needs to be addressed (and we have a loose consensus for this) but I am wary of integrating this guideline elsewhere for precisely the reasons you state. I welcome further comment on this issue, however Fritzpoll (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning for keeping it as a separate article, but that raises another question: Where should there be a link to this new guideline? Somewhere in the main Notability page? In the Bio page? (as part of One event?) Sbowers3 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what language WO:BIO is written in? :) Sbowers3 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, in Wolof :) Fritzpoll (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Any idea what it says? Sbowers3 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's saying something along the lines of "This page does not exist" but I'm not sure... Fritzpoll (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was ok to be in the {{notabilityguide}} template, but it may, at some point, need further links, and perhaps a suitable abbreviation? Fritzpoll (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I see (said the blind man to his deaf wife). Yes, in the template is prob enough. How about WP:CRIME? Sbowers3 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Should I do it now, or is it too soon? Fritzpoll (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRIME has already been taken by a wikiproject, who have also commandeered WP:CRIMINAL Fritzpoll (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:INFAMY? Not great but at least it's not already taken. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, this is gonna be officially the most difficult page to shortcut to, with WP:ACT and WP:NC. How about, WP:FELONY, WP:ILLEGAL, and WP:SCANDAL? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I like WP:FELONY, so I've linked that one through Fritzpoll (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent because I can't type that many colons>My $.02, I'm actually not a big fan of WP:FELONY being the shortcut, although it is memorable, it is also presumptive. Not all "criminal acts" that may be covered by this guideline are felonies. Again, for me anyway, it comes back to a presumption of innocence. Also, this guideline may eventually evolve to include mysterious disappearances and missing persons. Felony, in that sense, is a little bit peacocky. What about WP:N/CA, with a hatnote at WP:NCA that says "NCA redirects here. Did you mean notability (criminal acts)? Using a / is not unheard of, for example the WP:LOCE project uses several -- WP:LOCE/C, WP:LOCE/R, others. Also, WP:AN/I. It wouldn't be that foreign to remember. Any thoughts? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I'm happy with anything, really, provided it is memorable Fritzpoll (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I just changed it. I actually see another good reason for it. If you type WP:N/CA, and then click on the small font that says redirected from WP:N/CA, you can from there, get back to the general notability guideline (that I'll presume this will be linked from/to). IMO, it legitimizes this in a similar way to WP:MUSIC or WP:ATHLETE shortcuts. Just my opinion though. Do you want me to revert myself, or would you like me to delete the WP:FELONY redirect? (I'm admin). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. You can wipe the WP:FELONY if you want to. Thanks :) Fritzpoll (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should explain that details of crime don't matter

As we have seen in many arguments against inclusion of these articles, some editors ignore ruling purely on notability and start to take in details of the case to explain why it supposedly isn't notable. I think there should be explicit wording in this guideline/policy to describe that, something to the tune of "Specific details of crimes and their perceived uniqueness should never be used as a decider for inclusion. The most basic and routine crimes should be included if they meet the notability guidelines above. Likewise, the crimes perceived as unique and very interesting may not be included if they don't meet these guidelines." Thoughts? Gwynand (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

By specifying the criteria for inclusion, I think this naturally specifies what the criteria for conclusion are not, simply by the act of omission. Anything else may run the risk of being over-wordy and open to more interpretation Fritzpoll (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You might be right, but the goal of this policy is to simplify rules of inclusion and heavily trim those long AfD debates. As is, the policy has some very good points, but is so general that it arguably adds very little to wp:note. We are writing this up because of the modern phenomenon of media obsession of otherwise routine deaths/dissapearances. I think some wording addressing the major issue might be helpful. Just look at the section below... it is proposed that random missing blondes are inherently not notable, but Shannon Matthews is because of the claim that it was the biggest missing persons search ever. We are trying to avoid these distinctions that don't have anything to do with notability.Gwynand (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "routine" murder. Every case is different. There are patterns, true. But there are patterns to serial killers also. There was no practical difference between the BTK guy and Ted Bundy. Yet somehow they are considered "notable"? And why is that? Only one reason: Intense media coverage. The only reason we know or care about Jack the Ripper is due to so-called "Fishwrap" news. Thus belying the capriciously and arbitrarily applied "Not News" policy that the deletionists fall back on when they personally don't like something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

I personally think that no article about a news story should exist if it doesn't put it into historical perspective. For example, your random missing pretty white girl shouldn't. But if there's something noteworthy about it, e.g. biggest X in Y years, it's still brought up a decade or so after it happens, then sure, it'd be fine. An example, and I'm quoting local knowledge here, is Shannon Matthews. 9-year old kid goes missing about 10 miles from where I live, she's found a month after. Now, the only coverage that got in even the local newspapers was a regular appeal in the papers, in conjunction with the local shops putting up similar posters. Nothing noteworthy there. However, the search for her turned out to be the biggest since Peter Sutcliffe, 30 years ago. Now that shows noteworthiness, folks. Will ^(talk) 16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It’s funny that we posted so close in time to one another, because it appears we are arguing virtually opposite points. It technically doesn’t matter that Matthews was the biggest missing persons case. This may have been why she became notable, but it’s not why she is notable. She is notable because there is an overwhelming amount of coverage on her since her discovery. We need to distinguish these whole things, it’s the whole concept of notability. It’s not up to us to decry the phenomenon of the random pretty white girl coverage, these cases are notable because of the coverage, period. Gwynand (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The random missing pretty girl syndrome is a noteworthy trend in itself, and therefore anything connected with it is automatically noteworthy also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, a syndrome is notable, (not being disputed) and therefore everyone connected to the syndrome is automatically notable?. A stretch at best. See WP:NOT#INHERITED. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'd say I'd disagree that this makes someone "automatically notable". Just a few minutes ago Bugs you made the point that something is notable only for "intense media coverage", which I happen to agree with. This contradicts that. You seem to be all over the place... please wp:agf in these discussions, we are trying to constructively get somewhere. Gwynand (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I am trying to flush out the inherent ambiguities and self-contradictions in the deletionists' arguments. The "notability" and "not news" rules are being applied capriciously and arbitrarily, strictly on the basis of the whims of the editors at that particular moment. Until that issue is addressed, there is no fixing this ongoing problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK... we probably agree on this. What does this have to do with your comment about something being inherently notable due to missing white girl syndrome? In my opinion you are coming off as very confusing on many of these points, even though you appear to agree with many of us. Gwynand (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To point out the self-contradiction in the editor's citing of some alleged and presumably notable and citable syndrome, while claiming that specific elements of said syndrome are somehow not notable. This has nothing to do with personal attacks, it has to do with trying to get people to think about what they're saying, and to maybe, somehow, possibly, reach some common and consistent ground, which is why this new page was started in the first place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Blah. This is why you are being so cryptic. Blonde white girls getting kidnapped isn't new or notable. The intense media coverage and cherry picking of certain cases may be, and that is causing a problem with AfDs. Two entirely different things. Maybe in the future there will be an article on this topic. I was simply pointing out why our discussion on notability are so important now. As shown in the AfDs, many many editors can't believe that these cases are notable and are trying to decide on their own that they are not... against the very concept of notability. I was trying to bring up the issue that we need to address these editors specifically. Gwynand (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I bet I can find you plenty of citations that it is notable. And who are the wikipedia editors to decide that standard news sources are not to be used when they don't like the story? "I don't like it" is not a defense. Yet it's the core of all these arguments. And it is unfixable until the light comes on and the editors understand that fact. See ya. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea-- we can cover the missing pretty girl as long as we give enough weight to say, the missing ugly black boy who was at the top of his class and has been missing for 10 years. My main problem is that as to satisfy NPOV, we should give equal amount of weight even if the media doesn't. As in "Amercan Idiot" -- even if the country is ruled by the media Wikipedia shouldn't. Editorofthewiki 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re to Gwynand: I know there's been a resurgence in the media, it's to be accepted if she's found. I'm arguing that the "biggest search in 30 years" adds historical perspective, which we need. I forgot to mention, her disappearance did get the front page for a day or two after, but it went down to poster appeals after that. Will ^(talk) 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth ... Baseball Bugs usually has some very cogent points. I wish people would listen to / read / digest what he says. Sometimes, unjustly, he is dismissed out of hand. That's my two cents. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Reverted edits by JzG

I removed some text added by Jzg. The paragraph relating to covering the event not the person was, I felt, adequately and concisely explained earlier in the guideline. Simimlarly, the "news aggregator" comment - I see what you meant, but again, what constitutes a source has been a subject of debate here, and is partly covered by the existing text. I think that an additional paragraph like this one was somewhat blunt and confusing in context. Perhaps a discussion of whether this text is sufficiently restrictive is what is necessary? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And I reverted as well. If there is no discussion, there is no inclusion at this point, imo. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The p[oint of guideliens is that they reflect current practice, not shape some new intended current practice. The text I put in reflect current policy and practice and explains why it is current practice. The point of WP:BLP1E is that we are an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid aggregator. The crucial difference between notable criminals and non-notable ones is the character and depth of the sources. This should be obvious. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My only problem is that, where you have placed this paragraph, the paragraph immediately preceding it summarises and points users to WP:BLP1E, which you then more or less quote. I don't see what additional information this paragraph adds? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the contribution to remove redundancy and integrated it into the existing text. Does this still cover everything you wanted said, or have I inadvertently removed something? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Man, I got bad timing. I went to merge the two paragraphs and got an EC, but this is what I had in mind:

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Articles on individuals, especially living individuals, should be drawn from reliable secondary sources. Tabloid stories about a murder victim are not a good basis for a biography, ideal sources are books and scholarly articles offering substantial treatment of the individual and the background for their involvement. Any notability of the crime is not automatically inherited by the victims or perpetrators of such crimes, and articles should not automatically be created on these individuals, in accordance with WP:BLP1E. However, the victims and/or perpetrators of notable crimes may have articles under certain conditions.

I'm posting it here on the off chance that ya two like it. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Liked it, stole it, wikified it a bit, included it. Much better than my version Fritzpoll (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grace period

Since I see it discussed a lot in the various afds I want to add one here. How about a grace period for articles under this guide? This is meant to help establish historical notability. Say something like 2 months, if anyone feels the article isn't quite up to snuff, they can tag it for afd. Now, I'm not proposing a routine tagging of afd after two months as well, we'd have to heavily discourage drive by tagging. Some thoughts? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

An excellent idea, and one which I was arguing for in the Carson and Burk articles, which are probably of equal notability, yet one was retained and one deleted, which illustrates again the capricious, arbitrary, whimsical approach to these types of stories. And which the deletionists will argue against on the grounds that it is not notable at that moment. Which really means they want to kill it immediately, while they have the energy for it, rather than revisiting it later when they might not. They argue that it is not notable at first. They are wrong. They have no way to know whether it is notable, because "wikipedia is not a crystal ball," nor do its editors possess one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, under that theory, the propsed article definitely isn't notable at the earlier moment in time because it hasn't asserted it's notability. There may be many cases where a case does become notable much further down the line, where it would then be appropriate to create an article. I think what we are discussing here are entirely different cases. Gwynand (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea in theory. Although "historical notability" and "two months" in the same sentence seems silly and oxymoronic. I see the point, nonetheless. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

The deletionists were arguing for deletion on the grounds that "in 6 months no one will care." Since they can't possibly know that for a fact, then a 6 month "grace period" would seem to be reasonable. Or 2 months. Or whatever. But unless the deletionists have crystal balls, they can't possibly "know" whether a story will be notable in 6 months. It's just more of the "I don't like it, so let's delete it" stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. The deletionists merely delete because they don't like it (first) and then manufacture some weak "reasoning" (second). No doubt about that. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

I think I have to disagree (well, not have to but will!). Notability is not temporary, per policy. An event or individual has to establish their notability before it/they can be included. If a topic is insufficiently notable in hindsight, then it shouldn't have been included to begin with. This isn't arguing from a personal point of view, but from WP:NTEMP - the guideline specifies a particular level of coverage that has to be recieved, and I think that should weed out the newsflashes that WP:NOT#NEWS is trying to avoid, whilst accepting that WP:N currently accepts articles are notable provided they are backed up by reliable third-party sources. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Notability is defined thus: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." No mention of any timescale. And the fact remains that we cannot tell the future, and we shouldn't have to. If the coverage exists, the article should exist, anything else is original research. But what I think is important, and is brought out in this proposal, it that what the coverage makes notable enough for inclusion is an article about an event, 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 coatrack articles, 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. Jdcooper (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree here about the proper meaning of the general notabiity criterion. It's the criterion if nothing else applies, not a criterion which overrides everything else. Using it in an overriding sense is mistaking what is only a guideline as being policy. Personally, I think we need an overhaul of the entire concept, the article, and all those depending upon it. But it makes no sense to say that anything at all is suitable for an article if there are two sources. If that is the meaning of "notable" it has no relationship to being suitable or not for an encyclopedia one way or another. That we're an encyclopedia is what is policy. Now, I interpret the coverage of a proper modern online comprehensive general encyclopedia for the 21st century very broadly, but it doesnt depend only on sources. Sources only come into here via WP:V, which is policy--that we need information to write an article. DGG (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree that the notability guidelines as they stand could do with some reworking, but I think at the moment that there is no strong community drive to do this yet. Most of this section is ultimately derived from note 6 at WP:N so I didn't think it would be that controversial, but it needed to be restated for the purposes of this guideline. In essence, it was to try to avoid the tabloidism that you are concerned about below, and may be rewritten if a better mechanism can be found. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questionably criminal events

What about Natalee Holloway, who disappeared, possibly through a criminal agency, and possibly not? (please don't debate that here). Will this apply to that article? If so, perhaps some phrasing to make that clear is in order. In which case, we should also go back and apply it to others who presumably fell victim to a criminal act, but we are not sure, such as Joseph Force Crater. I would propose adding language like, "A disappearance, in which a criminal investigation took place, is included under the definition of "crime" for purposes of this page, regardless of whether it has been shown that a criminal act was committed."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Although Judge Crater, like Jimmy Hoffa, another one never found, was already presumably a "notable" figure before his disappearance. And you're right, although there is no proof of a crime in the Holloway case, there was definitely a criminal investigation, implying a supposition of crime on the part of the police. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Judge Crater wasn't notable in 1930whatever, I doubt if many trial level court judges such as Crater who have not provided over a notorious case, have their own articles. I don't think an article on any of his colleagues would survive AfD, unless they went on to do something more notable. And there are any number of disappeared people in that category. I suggest that if someone is notable for their disappearance only, that the article be headed "Disappearance of . . . ", if that is what editors want.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You have hit the core of the problem - "What editors want." What good editors should "want" are simply these two things: (1) providing information to the readers and (2) following policy. If the editors can decide arbitrarily that in this case we'll call it "disappearance" and in this other case we'll name it directly after the person, based on what they "want", i.e. their momentary whim, then something's wrong with the policy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then let's get this in the policy and then we can all march together. Incidently, I put that phrase in there because I was feeling diffident about my suggestion. I don't usually get involved in matters of WP policy, and didn't want to put my foot in my keyboard.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Diffident strokes for diffident folks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Touché.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dumped a new sentence into the very start to allay concerns. Not happy with the wording, so feel free to tidy it up. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trial

You might like to trial the draft guidelines against this article which is being discussed for deletion. WWGB (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming no sources were found during the AfD, it would probably automatically fail against the guideline. Difficult to assess otherwise because sources aren't listed. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The coverage appears to be wide-spread in Spain (though I don't read Spanish) and the UK. The UK papers are national in scope; the coverage is unique (not just copied from a wire service). I would judge that the event is notable by this guideline. Agreed?

The article lists two ELs which are UK papers; the AFD has Google showing many other papers. Am I missing something? This seems a good test of what the new guideline covers or doesn't cover. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends - the coverage in Spain seems national in scope, or probably is; the Google links are all pointing back to the same website and I can't immediately see their source. If they can be clarified as multiple independent sources of national scope, not all using the same report feed, then yes, the guideline seems to accept. But the UK sources do not seem to me to be particularly useful (see below) Fritzpoll (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made an addition - I think the UK papers are not actually covering this event; they are actually covering the Madeleine McCann story again. As such, the guideline shouldn't allow this repeat coverage of the old event to confer notability on the new event. I added a sentence or two about this, but please remove it if you feel it is unnecessary Fritzpoll (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are correct that the UK papers are in essence re-covering the McCann story and that is a good reason for not assigning notability to Cortes. That raises a different question. Let's suppose that the Spanish coverage was national, non-trivial, and from multiple-independent sources - but all are written in Spanish. Let's assume that there is no English coverage. Does the event rate notability in English Wikipedia? Sbowers3 (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is yes. Longer answer is "It's an encyclopedia written in English. About the whole world, not just the English." Simple misplacement of an adjective, that's all. In other words, if the sources, other than being in Spanish, pass the independent test, the reliability test, they are OK. Not ideal but OK. The third test, the verifiability test, is the harder one. Just need to learn Spanish though, that's all. Or find someone who does. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creep

I'm not persuaded that crimes are sufficiently different from other news events to require a special guideline. This then fails WP:CREEP. The real issue is what WP:NOT#NEWS means and why we, in fact, have huge amounts of news coverage here - people seem to write articles about everything that appears in the daily news, e.g. A More Perfect Union. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the issues you raise have been mentioned at the general discussion page Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions, particularly in relation to WP:CREEP. This guideline has a very specific problem that it solves Fritzpoll (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability criteria for Court cases/Trials?

I've often wished that someone had written up a guideline for judging the notability of court cases, I think cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helvenston et al. v. Blackwater Security are pretty easily demonstrated, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elicia Hughes has me scratching my head. Input welcome. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can take a shot at writing one up, if people think there is a need and it doesn't violate WP:CREEP or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a guideline with broad community support, but if an experienced wikipedian with some experience with the subject were to start a draft/essay to parallel Wikipedia:Notability (science) for legal cases, I'd find it (and no doubt, the discussion it prompted) very useful. I'm certain there's a bunch of analogs to science citation indices that I know nothing about. Judging the relative notability of legal cases by Ghits and media noise feels pretty shakey. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seems like too much, BLP1E is for this - what about Jesse James?

Would Jesse James be notable under this? How about John Wayne Gacy? Kenneth Lay? Cordelia Botkin? Betty Broderick? Lawrence § t/e 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since in the various afds and discussions before this, BLP1E is often raised by one side and disregarded by the other stating that newsworthiness is notability. This proposed policy acts to clarify how newsworthiness interacts with notability in the context of criminal acts. Considering that in very similar Carson and Burk afds the former was kept and the latter deleted, this policy is needed. As for the specific cases you've mentioned, James, Gacy, and Lay, they survive for the historic impact their crimes have had besides being generally notable. Botkin and Broderick survive by passing general notability for having good references. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 02:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And so ought many others, for having adequate references. The problem is that these references are generally regarded as inadequate based on NOT NEWS as not showing long term notability. There needs a clear statement that though we are not a tabloid,. neither are we only a traditional historical record of major events only. DGG (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to be able to define a tabloid as a non-reliable source for the purposes of determining notability. I think the problem might be in defining "tabloid", but I will have a quick peek Fritzpoll (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about this as an inclusion to the section on establishing the notability of criminal acts

Many tabloid newspapers present information in a simplified, over-sensationalised manner. Sources that meet the definition given by Tabloid#As a sensational, gossip-filled newspaper, given their recognised tendency for sensationalism, do not meet the standards of reliability required to establish notability of a criminal act in isolation. This does not prohibit their use in articles as sources of information, provided reliable sources can be used to establish notability.

It may need rewording, and the definition of a tabloid may need to be brought into the text, but in principle, what do people think? Fritzpoll (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My objection was in fact quite the opposite, pointing out the excessive use of NOT TABLOID to reject sources--tabloids are sources of public information, and public interest in an event is part of what makes it encyclopedic, in the sense that people will expect to find information about notable crimes in an encyclopedia, even if they have been informed about it only in a tabloid. I think there's also going to be a problem about definition: is the NY Post a tabloid in the sense suggested? DGG (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The NY Post is definitely a valid source--I'd contest anyone who says otherwise. It's I believe the 2nd or 3rd most circulated newspaper in our nation's largest market, and from their own article here: "The New York Post is the 13th-oldest newspaper published in the United States and the oldest to have been published continually as a daily.[3]" Lawrence § t/e 13:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I was trying to solve a problem that didin't exist with this suggestion. In which case, I suggest sticking with the current defintion. I'm then a bit unsure as to what problem you were identifying, DGG. Perhaps you can clarify? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3.2 Inclusion of biographical information

I disagree with "The class of articles detailed in the preceding section are meant to be about the event, and not the participants. This means that biographical information about participants should be limited to that which can be linked to the event; material that establishes the notablility of the event, or which is reasonably required to explain some aspect of the event. The application of this guideline will necessarily vary from article to article and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis."

The background of the individuals is part of what makes the event notable. We write articles about the event not the participants partly in order not to have the name in the title--that does not mean they are insignificant. DGG (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the Murder of Eve Carson, do quotes from her at school, or the high school she went to, etc. actually contribute to the topic of the article? This is an example of what that particular paragraph is trying to prevent - the creation of an article purporting to be about something that is notable, in order to actually write about a topic that is not. The quoted paragraph does not preclude all information. In the example I give, it is of course essential to know the age of the victim, her position in her college and the college that she attended, but a detailed biography of the victim in this case is not particularly necessary. Notability policy does not, of course, tell us that notability has to extend to related topics within articles on notability, but the contents of this kind of article need to be constrained otherwise an article about the notable crime dissolves into a memorial/obituary/autobiography parading as a notable topic. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in this case, yes they do. that she was prominent in the student body s part of the notability. The nature of the victim can make a crime notable. However, there are indeed many other cases where the bio of the victim is overemphasised for the purpose of pathos. DGG (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, we're not disagreeing. From my statement above ...it is of course essential to know the age of the victim, her position in her college and the college that she attended... - what part of this section that you disagree with is overly restrictive in your view? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What part of the article do you then find excessive? It seemed to be you were citing it as a bad example. Not arguing with you, just to clarify. DGG (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and referring to the article, I see that it has actually been updated since I last saw it. Nonetheless, I think the funeral/memorial is covered in too much detail. Is there really a necessity for the UNC Chancellor's opinion on her to be in there? Why does her high school matter, or the fact that she was valedictorian? At most, it should cover biographical aspects relating to her role within the college, because that is the relevant part of her life to this article....at least, that's what I'm arguing! Fritzpoll (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to end the prohibition on biographies of people known for one event?

This is mentioned in WP:AN because it is important and this page isn't seen by many people.

Murder of James Bulger is one example.

Who are we trying to kid? The article is on James Bulger. Adding "murder of" is wikilawyering to try to get James Bulger covered.

Why not delete the George W. Bush article and change it to "Pre-presidential life and presidential life of George W. Bush"? We are just creating episode titles like TV shows.

The debate should be whether a local murder is worthy of an encyclopedia, not banning people's names and wikilawying a compliant title.

BVande (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a proposal for a guideline being considered at the moment that would address titling and content issues like this. Have a look at WP:N/CA for the proposal on criminal acts Fritzpoll (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, this sort of discussion would be better held at the village pump or on the relevant policy talk page. J Milburn (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with J Mil. There has been so much discussion on this topic in other forums. There are certainly valid non-wikilawyering reasons for having "murder of ...." titles. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with BVande's view of Murder of James Bulger. It is not a biography of Bulger, who does nothing in the article but die. It is about the murderers, the investigation, and the subsequent trial. Those were extensively covered in the national press of the U.K. It's hard to argue that the Manson family murders, Jack the Ripper, O.J. Simpson, and similar cases are not encyclopedic, even if the individuals involved are otherwise non-notable. The Bulger case is far less notorious, but it appears to be sufficiently notable for an article, even if Bulger himself was otherwise non-notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to be about the crime entirely, and barely mentions any biographical information at all. In fact, it meets this guidelines proposals for content pretty much completely. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of discussion => no consensus

This proposal has been widely advertised, and yet there are only 15 endorsement/opposition comments on the opinions page. As such, User: Stifle 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is jumping the gun in a big way. I have no argument with the idea that sustained lack of discussion, coupled with few participants = lack of consensus, but two weeks of relative quiet is not lack of discussion and this certainly shouldn't have been tagged as "rejected" with the majority of editors who have commented, voicing their support. Consensus is not an overnight process and affirmative approval is hard to come by (see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus). Moreover, I already see implicit support for this proposal from another source: the fact that it appears to me to codify the ideas that were already approved through consensus by multiple users in prior deletion debates on subjects within this proposal's ambit. The bar is set much lower for stating what is already approved by the community in practice but only now written down, than it is for changing or overriding established policies or processes.

Wikipedia:Notability (people) was proposed on August 1, 2003 and adopted as guideline almost two years later on June 13, 2005. Wikipedia:Notability (web) was proposed on July 2, 2005 and adopted as guideline on December 12, 2005, more than five months later. I posted the first draft of Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) on July 1, 2006 and it was adopted as guideline on February 6, 2007, seven months later. Over that span there were periods of inactivity, followed by a new voice and reinvigorated interest, as well as AfD discussions which mined from the proposal and thus showed use-evidence of consensus.

You posted the first draft of this on March 10, 2008—just a month and 10 days before it was marked as rejected, and I see you didn't start advertising until March 15 (at least that's when you added it to {{Notabilityguide}} and I also see that much of your other advertising efforts were done on March 19. No, this is not rejected, nor historical, nor can we say that it suffers from lack of discussion; not yet. I think it's time to you advertised this in a few more places you didn't try. A Wikipedia:Requests for comment might be useful. Certainly advertising at the Community Portal through a short summary at {{Announcements/Community bulletin board}} is appropriate. I'm sure there are others. Meanwhile, I am adding this back to {{cent}} and removing the "sleeping" tag on the guideline page, as I think this was premature (obviously), and this post and my support on the opinions page show activity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me - but as the original author, I was unwilling to unilaterally undo this action in case it resulted from some systematic bias. If you can advertise it around a bit more, that'd be great, as it would look less like me pushing my own personal viewpoint alone. Many thanks Fritzpoll (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I was a lot gloomier in talking with Fritzpoll on my talkpage. I should've been more optimistic/patient/long-suffering! I didn't know the lengthy history of the other notabilty guidelines, that is excellent information for future reference. Also, excellent suggestions for crossposting this discussion, places I hadn't thought of. Back to work! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll go advertise this at the community portal and attempt to think of other areas.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please see {{Announcements/Community bulletin board}} and feel free to modify.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New paragraph suggested to perpatrators Section

Answer to fritz' question when he reverted my edit: I've added a paragraph to the perpatrators section that, if adopted, would help resolve a knotty dispute in the American Criminals category. David in DC (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

 :-) Yes, I saw you say this in the Opinions section. But you still haven't said what that problem is? Fritzpoll (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Many articles carrying the "American Criminals" category are not primarily notable for their crimes. I've been working to fix that, but it's hard. This language might help. Check out the RfC on the American Criminals talk page for the ongoing debate. Check out my contribution history for cases I've pulled the tag from like Billy Preston, Kendra James, Eugene Hasenfus.David in DC (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to the RfC? I can't actually find it anywhere Fritzpoll (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, here 'tis: [1] David in DC (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Why is this here? Can't we just use WP:NOT#NEWS or some other guideline" - a rationale

I thought this might be a useful discussion point, having written this elsewhere to provoke interest. The guideline was originally written with AfD conflicts in mind, as stated on the project page. The general problem at the AfDs was the conflict between the notability guidelines allowing inclusion if covered sufficiently by reliable, third-party sources, and between WP:NOT#NEWS which has some isolated statements that can be interpreted against inclusion or as irrelevant to the debate.

Consider the text: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopaedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopaedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. 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 overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)"

When used in debate, the first sentence became a fight between "won't know it is historical until later, but it is notable now per WP:N" vs. "wait for it to become historical before inclusion"

The next two sentences in the debates could either be split apart to favour exclusion using the "not all events warrant an encyclopaedia of their own". or read together with the second sentence clarifying the first, meaning that not everything in a newspaper is valid for inclusion, such as announcements, sports and tabloid journalism.

The remaining parts of this paragraph were the source of debate, but this seems to be resolved with the criteria in place at this guideline should it be adopted. However, the proposed guideline also attempts to interpret the conflicting interpretations of NOT#NEWS in relation to criminal acts. This is likely to be the trickiest thing, although the building consensus on Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions suggests the balance is right so far - that said, this should still be a topic for discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Fritz, this is just more well intentioned WP:CREEP as attempts to put bandaids on a flawed AfD system. It was tagged rejected last month, but resurected with unfulfilled promisses of progress. It seems time to bury the dead horse -- mark rejected. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  I appreciate your opinion, but I can't say much more on the creep issues that hasn't been covered above or on the opinions subpage. And I didn't resurrect it - User:Fuhghettaboutit did and gave a rationale for doing so. Discussion may be scant, but it is taking place - I guess these things take time. That said, it shouldn't be allowed to run indefinitely, but I'm not personally sure the timing is right yet. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with Fritzpoll, K. Murray. What's the rush? There is no dead horse to kick yet (and if there were, would he be notable for his one event, that of being dead?) These things take time. Fuhghettaboutit said it sometimes takes several months or over a year to establish a new, relevant guideline. This one needs no "kill" button yet. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for a biographical article on a criminal act

I just now started a new AfD for a biographical article on a perpetrator known for a single event. The event received worldwide news media attention, but just 2-1/2 years it seems to be largely forgotten, so I judged that it would be best covered in the article about the military base where the event occurred. People interested in this proposed guideline may be interested in considering how this particular AfD relates to the guideline (and vice versa). --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serial Killers

I'm really no good at writing things, I'd rather leave it to others. I'd like to propose that we include something small on the topic of low victim serial killers. I've ran into an issue (self contemplation really) when I was planning to create an article on an individual who is in books, web sites, and other indexes on serial killers, but has only killed 2 people. Hes been related to people like Henry Lee Lucas, on the topic of false claims/confessions (and as far as I have read, it can't be established as of yet that he hadn't killed more). But I'm just not sure of his notability. I have several sources (nytimes, news week, book references) and I'm ready to create it, but I'd like to see other opinions now. Any thoughts? — _Maggot^Syn 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What about creating it in your userspace first with refs? I'd be happy to look it over before it goes live and give you advice. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for lending a hand. I was already thinking about my sandbox. I was using it as an example of possibly adding to this proposal (I can write a bit for articles, what I meant was: I'm not good at amendments to proposals). Any thoughts along those lines? — _Maggot^Syn 16:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to be too daft here or noncommittal, but I'll simply say "depends". For example, if you have an article subject that is notable, ie multiple independent sources, a long timeline of events, book references that analyze his particular case, crimes, confessions, claims, and their merits, it would pass notability. A "buddy" of mine way way back in high school killed 3 people in a drunken stupor, with a shotgun. Got wrote up in the local paper, the court case was all over the news. He's not notable though, never been written about outside that event. See the difference? As for updating the language of the proposed policy, I don't think it would be necessary to add more too it. At its conception, it was meant as a "general policy" to cover "specific news items". Sorry for rambling, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Borderline guideline criteria mentioned for serial killers is what I'd like to see still (I'm particular for the written word; nothings set in stone, but it is still on topic for this proposal). I do realize that asking that this be put into this proposal might be a bit redundant to other guidelines, but if I'm not mistaken, other editors also think that too many add ons such as this proposal itself to BLP is also redundant. If I'm wrong then tell me. I'm just looking to add to it, for thoroughness. — _Maggot^Syn 16:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're slowly convincing me...hmm. Ok, the "perpetrators" section already reads (in part) for justifying an article on a perpetrator: the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy. Generally this will be case if books have been written about the criminal (bolding mine). What if we wording that more along the lines of the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy. Generally this will be case if books have either been written entirely about a criminal or heavily cite a criminal's actions as noteworthy. (bolded change). Thoughts? Tweaks? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)I'd have to give this more thought, after work I'll get back to you. — _Maggot^Syn 16:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounded good. Although I think what I was getting at was an actual criteria to determine how notable a serial killer has to be, to justify an article. Does that make more sense? And apologies. It took me this long just to say that. Synergy 20:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I saw this, no need to ping my talk. I'll respond shortly (or maybe I'll take 6 weeks like you did :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well. I figured your watchlist to be three times the size mine is, and as such, would have made this page land somewhere in the middle. I edit proven wrong (which means I'll wait as long as you did). Synergy 21:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I updated the guideline to reflect the sentence above. That said, this kinda feels like a "dying effort" really (no pun intended). At least, until another "nobody" gets murdered and makes it on CNN...Keeper ǀ 76 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no. This is not specifically for new serial killers. There are a few that date back to the 19th century, and happen to be what I'm talking about. These would be marginal biographies that could possibly be deleted under the pretense that they are only in a few published works, and newpapers. Synergy 21:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Write em up! Actually, what I would do, is write up a List of serial killers from the 19th century, with subsections of the serial killers' names. Write a paragraph about each person's "story/crimes/motives/patterns". If you can't feasibly see anyone, yourself included, writing more than a paragraph, don't write an article (stubs are good; perpetual stubs on the other hand...). The subject matter is definitely notable, and I imagine, regardless of this (unadopted, non-) guideline, that you wouldn't need to worry about a mass-deletion (although the irony of a "mass deletion" would be thick...:-) Keeper ǀ 76 14:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just checking in to prove I still care...the guideline as it stands is good, but I think the more fundamental issue is probably the way WP:N is structured. That said, it will take a crime for this to become a hot topic again....perhaps we could take affirmative action ourselves in that regard? :-P Fritzpoll (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You said you need a new one?. How about the CEO of Minnesota's largest florist outfit (Bachman's Garden Center) being killed overseas during the Olympics? An American, killed in China, while a tourist. Connected to an Olympian coach. That should be interesting. It's already at AFD. Keeper ǀ 76 21:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to title murder articles

Perhaps this policy should address more specifically how to approach the naming of murder cases. Currently, articles tend to be named after the victim. This seems to me to be counterintuitive to writing an article about the crime when the subject appears to be a biography of the victim. So instead of an article being named Gwen Araujo it should be named Murder of Gwen Araujo. I think a clear policy in this area would be helpful in order to prevent biographical articles on victims.Nrswanson (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is actually mentioned within the proposed guideline. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• This has become a controversy at Matthew Shepherd. While naming an article for the crime makes sense when the focus of an article is exclusively about the crime, that may not be the end of the equation. In some cases, the victim's life is fully covered in the article, and in a few cases the victim becomes a symbol. In those instances, using the victim's name seems more appropriate. Also, in the name of parity, should we look at how we treat the criminals? Certainly Jack the Ripper is known only for his murders. Yet I can't imagine anyone seriously suggesting moving that article to Murders by Jack the Ripper. Overall, I'm thinking that the "Crime of..." format may be best suited to lesser crimes, or at least allowed considerable flexibility. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title I would make a motion to strike the words:

For example, a high profile crime would have an article entitled "Murder of Joe Bloggs", "Disappearance of Jane Doe", etc.

Replacing them with:

The article title should be the most common name used by the media, or either the victim's name or the perpetrator's, but should cover the event, and not become a biography, until and unless they become notable.

Everyone who becomes notable becomes notable beginning with an initial event, for example, Charles Manson has long ago passed the notability test, but initially, the event was what would be covered, not any of the individuals involved (other than Sharon Tate). 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What happened?

This page had been sitting around with a "dormant" tag on it and no discussion for more three months and all of a sudden I see that it's now become an official Wikipedia guideline. Please pardon my ignorance, but I'm curious. Who makes the decisions about what becomes an official guideline, and where are they made? BRMo (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can edit, just seems someone thought this was a good enough idea that had enough consensus behind it to become a guideline. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'm going to ask for some additional discussion. BRMo (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The poll at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(criminal_acts)/Opinions#RfC:_Should_Wikipedia:Notability_.28criminal_acts.29_be_adopted_as_a_guideline.3F was quite clear. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

BRMo: Do see any problem with this being a guideline? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if it was dormant, it should not have suddenly been adopted like that. Suggest we begin discussion/poll again.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Handled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Need_a_closing_admin by BlackKite per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Closing_of_a_consensus_process. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. However, if there is an issue with this, a new discussion on whether the consensus which was clearly present at the time is still relevant would be welcome. Black Kite 01:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Like to see what BRMo thinks about it, and then see where I stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The process seems strange to me - not sure why an administrator wasn't called in to close the discussion months ago, before the proposal was marked as dormant. I had a long discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions page with User:Fritzpoll in which I think he agreed in principle to make some amendments, but I don't believe he ever made them. So I guess I'll be bold and edit the guidelines myself to address my concerns and see if anyone objects. There were also some concerns raised about canvassing on the opinions page; I'm not sure how that was resolved. But if no one else objects here, I won't stand in the way of making this a guideline. BRMo (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. I guess it is a 27th amendment sort of thing, dormant does not mean dead. I won't stand in the way either.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I always felt it was odd that this was never promoted. Glad to see someone finally took initiative.Nrswanson (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I do have to agree that there is certainly an element of impropriety in going from dormant to guideline. Once it has been marked dormant that nullifies any prior discussion, and to become a guideline a new discussion would need to be initiated. I suggest in the meantime it be marked as under discussion, and a new poll be taken. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Political violence

Can we please clarify that this guideline does not, at least in its current form, apply to criminal acts of a political nature, such as acts of terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and so on? While this guideline could be adjusted to cover these types of crimes, its current focus clearly is on crimes by individuals against individuals. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - I imagine these kind of crimes would have substantial coverage that would fall under the GNG though, so it may not be necessary Fritzpoll (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed naming change

I don't believe that the naming of articles about criminal acts needs to be any different from the guidelines for articles in general. A key guideline for the naming of articles is that they be the most commonly used name. I think it is very unlikely that a user is more likely to type in "Murder of John Smith" than a simple "John Smith". For this reason, I think we should just use the name of the victim, unless the article is written in such a way that it would make more sense to name it with the longer "Murder of John Smith". A good reason to use the longer title is because it is a subarticle, like Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. That said, there is no reason to write a full biography about a person who is only notable because they were a victim of a crime. So the naming of the article and the content of the article are separate issues. The content is related to notability, but the naming of the article is not. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the motivation for the naming convention here was that it was a means by which the associated AfDs were diffused. The problem with the name of the victim being the title is that it suggests that the article is a biography, which it shouldn't be. When, at the AfDs that inspired this guideline, it was suggested that the form "Murder of..." be used, the opposition died away somwhat because it satisfied the ONEEVENT concerns. What I could concede needs changing is the restriction on articles where the victim is discussed at length beyond the initial flurries of reports in the media - Natalie Holloway would be a good example (although presently unaffected by this guideline) Fritzpoll (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to tweak the wording of this guideline to more accurately present the current naming practice of these articles. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Executed Criminals in the United States

I have been in the slow process of writing an article for everyone executed in Louisiana since the reinstatement of capital punishment. About once a year I have one of the articles nominated for AfD or challenged in discussion. See Dobie Gillis Williams, Talk:Thomas_Lee_Ward, and Dalton Prejean. Currently I am involved is an AfD on John A. Brown, Jr. that has gone way beyond anything intended in WP:CIVIL. (And in the process trying to read and learn policies created in the last few years on WP without me noticing.) I have forwarded the position since 2005 when originally challenged on Dobie Gillis Williams that everyone executed individual in the United States since reinstatement is noteworthy for inclusion in WP. It is only 2.5% of convicted murderers that are sentenced to death and only a fraction of those sentenced to death actually get executed. Every executed convict since Furman has received significant coverage in the news media. This includes the crime, the trial, and ultimately the execution. There are also usually numerous articles that over the span of years as the the convcit's appeal and pardon applications are exhausted. These cases also have numerous independent reliable sources of information for a WP article due to the intense media coverage and also from the large of amount of public domain information contained in the opinion of the appellate courts. As I recently said in the current AfD ""Ordinary" murderers are not executed. It is only the extraordinary ones that are executed." This appears to the apporiate page to attempt to form a consensus on this issue. Reading WP:N/CA does not provide any guidance on post-reinstatement executed murderers in the United States. To be clear, there has been a total of 1,173 executions since 1976. Is a judicial execution since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the Untied States a notable enough event for the executed to receive a WP article? Does being executed post-Fumanmake you inherently notable? Please note: I have read the article title part of WP:N/CAand would to address that issue later. Nolamgm (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you posted this here. I had stopped by earlier to draft an Rfc with the question: "Are individuals who are judicially executed inherently notable?" I stopped when I came across the Wikipedia:Inherent notability essay. I'll re-post it below. Location (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That AFD is not uncivil. What I have noticed is that there is always at least one person that says that a debate is uncivil just because it is long. Joe Chill (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe, this really will be the last time I will respond to one your retorts. Just a little advice from someone who debates for a living. Using comments like "always" is uncivil and it will usually not help your argument. Little exclamations like "Hilarious!" equally hurt your cause and are uncivil. Rhetorical questions like "How did you make that mistake?" and "How did you miss that?" are uncivil and are destroy any creditable points you make. Statements like "You obviously don't understand Wikipedia notability that well." are uncivil. By comparison, Location and I have disagreed on the same issues over the last two days in a civilized way. We are discussing the issues and will probably reach a consensus on it. This does not mean that either my position or his will win in the end. But, that is what WP is about. Please stop trying to win. Offer logical and reasoned comments. You seem like a bright young person. You can do better then the comments mentioned Nolamgm (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What I said was logical. You just say that it isn't becase you disagree (that was an uncivil comment). I don't see why you told me to make my reason for deleting WP:JNN. That comment didn't seem civil. That whole stop trying to win comment makes no sense when that is what every editor does in AFD in order to keep or save an article (By the way, that comment is uncivil). The reason why I said a few of those comments is because I don't see how someone could completely twist someone's comments around in a way that wasn't even said. I guess I'm uncivil when I say comments like that and uncivil when I don't say anything that sounds bad at all. It seems likeWP:CIVIL doesn't matter as much as people think or as I use to think. For instance, I consider a few of your comments uncivil and you don't think so. Another example is when someone called me a troll and when someone said that I was attracted to feces and everyone said that the comments weren't uncivil. Joe Chill (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Are individuals who are judicially executed inherently notable?

The answers to this question will help shape a consensus view that could modify the perpetrator section in Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) Are individuals who are judicially executed inherently notable? Location (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

1. Yes Depends See my above comments. I will paraphrase here. I have forwarded this position since 2005 when originally challenged on Dobie Gillis Williams that everyone executed individual in the United States since reinstatement is noteworthy for inclusion in WP. To be clear, there has been a total of 1,173 executions since 1976. It is only 2.5% of convicted murderers that are sentenced to death and only a fraction of those sentenced to death actually get executed. Every executed convict since Furman has received significant coverage in the news media. This includes the crime, the trial, and ultimately the execution. There are also usually numerous articles that over the span of several years as the convcit's appeal and pardon applications are exhausted. These cases also all have numerous independent reliable secondary sources of information for a WP article due to the intense media coverage and also from the large of amount of public domain information contained in the opinion of the appellate courts during the exhaustive appellant process in both State and Federal courts of all convictions. As I recently said in the current AfD ""Ordinary" murderers are not executed. It is only the extraordinary ones that are executed."Nolamgm (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

   Amended Response In light of some of the comments made against the questioned posed, I am amending my answer. I believe that MBisanz and Chuck make excellent points. The question is too broad.I still feel that the WP:N/CA should be amended to include a standard that individuals executed in the United States post-Furman are notable. Similar to what we have at WP:ATH. As a class of people, they all generally have been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,and independent of the subject." As for any WP:BIAS issue, I have also forwarded the position that individuals under a whole life tariff in the United Kingdom should also fit this standard. Nolamgm (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Usually. In the United States, there will generally be a large amount of coverage for the crime, trial/sentencing, appeals, and execution. ONEEVENT doesn't apply in such cases, as it will typically be ongoing, periodic coverage over a span of years and the GNG will be satisfied relatively easily. In some other parts of the world "judicially executed" may be a mostly irrelevant concept. 20:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Usually I would think it would help to have as complete a list as possible not only for people studying the death penalty but for those studying violence and the causes of it. If they were executed there must be a story behind it and in most cases there is informationa available about what led upto the crime. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No

1. They are not inherently notable for the simple reason that over the years millions of people have been executed in judicially sanctioned situations and unless there are reliable secondary sources addressing the persons, they should not be covered. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
2. I don't think we can even get a list of the names of everyone who has been judicially executed in the world this year, much less enough biographical information to write even a decent stub about them, much less so for people executed in the past. And if this notability guideline is to be limited to people executed in the United States since 1976, then that creates problems with U.S.-centrism and recentism. See WP:BIAS and WP:RECENT. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
3. No, per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary+WP:NOTMEMORIAL. And what Metropolitan90 said above.--Otterathome (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
4. No. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
5. No. MBisanz and Metropolitan90 demonstrate the main reasons. It is simply not a demonstrated fact that in past AFD discussions we have demonstrated that for anyone put to death as a result of judicial sentencing that there will almost inevitably be adequate sourcing to support a biographical article on the individual. In addition, while WP:BLP1E obviously does not apply after the execution, the logic that individuals notable for only one event should be covered in discussion of the event will still be sound, and will often apply. So even if there is sourcing, we may well be better off without an article. GRBerry 18:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
6. No, they are not inherently notable. These people need to satisfy normal notability guidelines. If they all those executed get significant news coverage, like is claimed, then there should be no problem meeting notability guidelines. But if an executed individual receives little or no coverage, then obviously they are not notable.Angryapathy (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
7. No. Per the linked article in the originally posed question, China executed over 5000 people in 2008. I do not think all of those 5000+ people are inherently, individually, notable. Most if not all executed criminals in the United States will meet the general notability guidelines, and if people want to create articles for each of the 37 people executed in the United States in 2008, I do not think would be difficult to show that each of those 37 people meet the general notability guidelines. Chuck (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Further comment As I see the current guideline, it's really just an explanation of how the general notability guideline applies to criminal acts; it doesn't override or create any exceptions to the GNG. Creating an "inherently notable" class for executed criminals would be an exception to the GNG and as such would actually be a fairly significant change to the scope of this guideline. Chuck (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

8. No. I certainly don't think we need a guideline that says they are notable regardless of the GNG - if anything I think this is one of several areas where the GNG alone would be too inclusive and needs a more detailed supplement. More detailed comment on this below. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

1. Neutral for now. Location (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Comment. Given that this is not an Afd, I think discussing other stuff should be perfectly acceptable. Although not typically described as such, certain subjects seem to get a pass on "inherent notability". Professional football and baseball players are two examples. I am interested in seeing other editors views on this. Location (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You are absolutely right. Remember WP:OTHERSTUFF does not say you can never use an example from another article as an example is an arguement. It says that you should not simply say that they is an article about x so this one is fine. Your example is good one to consider in this debate. It is currently policy as per WP:ATHLETE that "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport..."are inherently notable. Nolamgm (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, we can explore analogies. But Nolamgm misunderstands WP:ATHLETE and the other equivalent notability guidelines. They are guidelines rather than policy in the strict sense. These guidelines reflect, to the extent they are accurate, the actual results of large numbers of AFDs on these types of subject, and record rules of thumb that with high reliability predict the result of an AFD on a future similarl subject. They are effectively rules of thumb with high reliability for predicting when an editor that takes the time to research will be able to find multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage of a subject. They are not policies stating that certain subjects are notable whether or not those sources exist. If an editor did the requisite research and established that sources do not exist, it would still be appropriate to nominate the subject for AFD, demonstrating the nonexistence of sources in the nomination. GRBerry 17:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Although this thread quieted down some time ago, I wanted to interject the findings of a recent Afd to the history here that are relevant to the above comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder Collins. Thunder Collins played one professional football game in Canada and was recently sentenced for murder. I would venture to state that the number of independent reliable sources related to his murder far outweigh the number of independent reliable sources related to his professional football "career"; however, those recommending keep did so on the basis that playing one professional football game met WP:ATHLETE. In this instance, WP:ATHLETE might as well be policy because calling it a guideline implies that there are exceptions. With this in mind, there is no doubt to me that "inherent notability" applies to some subjects and not others. Location (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Admittedly, I am not an expert in WP policy. Two issues are giving me a lot of thought during this discussion. One issue that I am having trouble with is that in these discussions policies, guidelines, essays, and projects are cited as controlling and not controlling. The Afd that started this discussion was nominated for failing WP:BLP1E. Is WP:BLP1E a policy or a guideline? It is on the WP:BLP page that is a policy. WP:BIO1E, which I guess applies to the deceased, is on the WP:BIO page which is a guideline. I guess it makes some sense: WP has a strong policy about when a biography can be written about a living person and only a guideline about the deceased. Is this correct? The second issue is WP:BIO1E itself. It appears to be more about what to name an article then if the information in the article should be included. With my background and POV, I would much rather not name articles about murderers executed after the murderer but I really do not know what else to call it. Further, it is not so much as the crime itself that is the notable event but what happens to the murderer after the event that causes the notability. This brings up a sub-issue. Is there any consensus on what "one event" is? John A. Brown, Jr., the before mentioned article that led to this RfC, is broken up into four separate events: crime, arrest, trial, and execution. Of the four, I think only the trial, which resulted in a death sentence, and the execution of said sentence are actually notable. Are the two events so intertwined that they are considered "one event?" Nolamgm (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It seems that the focus of this has turned to creating an inherent class of notability for those executed in the U.S. since 1976. Not only is it U.S.-Centric, but it seems to violate NPOV by making the executed seem more important on Wikipedia. I am not accusing anyone of POV-pushing, but if WP states those executed since Furman are inherently notable, then the policy of WP is making a statement about the death penalty. By leaving out pre-Furman executions, this proposal would create a WP policy that highlights the importance of Furman, which would violate NPOV. I see no reason why WP should make a statement about the death penalty by creating an inherent class of notability of those executed in a certain country during a particular time frame. Our guidelines and policies on Notability are sufficent regarding the issue. Angryapathy (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why it couldn't be applied to those outside the USA. There have been several times where I have seen criticism of being USA centric. This may be partially legitimate but it seems to me that those concerned can provide information from outside the USA. Also ignoring the death penalty is a different kind of bias. I'm not sure Furman is the right landmark but more recent events are more notable if for no other reason than they are current events and there is more information that is available to report. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No one here is suggesting "ignoring the death penalty." Some people believe the GNG should be applied to executed crminals; others suggest executed criminals need not fulfill the GNG to have an article about them. Either way, no one on either side is "ignoring the death penalty." Chuck (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The death penalty should not be ignored, nor should its relevence be elevated by WP policy. Instead, no statement should be made on the death penalty, and let WP:GNG be followed in order to determine notability. Angryapathy (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the point I was trying to make is that if they thought the crime was serious enough for the death penalty it should be notable. If they are executing people for crimes that aren't notable there is something wrong. This is true whether you are in favor or against the death penalty. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• My position in support of notability in post-Furman is an attempt to create a guideline that meets WP:GNG. GNG requires a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order to be included. We have created several sub-guidelines on specific topics to help us apply GNG. As I mentioned above our WP:ATHLETE guideline provides that "people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport..." are generally notable. This is not WP pushing a POV about sports. This is simply the acceptance by the community that someone who played sports at a certain level will generally have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and thus meet WP:GNG. I believe that the same guideline can be implemented for at least post-Furmanexecuted individuals. I believe a guideline is necessary because I have witnessed WP:N/CA and WP:BIO1E used incorrectly in AFD discussions as authority as to why post-Furman individuals cannot have articles about them in WP. Finally, I selected the "cutoff" of post-Furman cases because of GNG. Cases post-Furman will generally have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This guideline could probably be safely extended until post-WWII capital cases in the United States and Western Europe. I also believe that individuals currently under a whole life tariff in the United Kingdom would also met GNG as a class. I am sorry but I am not that familiar with other countries. Maybe some editors more familiar with the criminal justice system of other countries can comment on any class of convicted persons who met GNG because of the nature of the conviction and sentence. Nolamgm (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE does not refer to something that can become a hotly contested subject; WP saying professional athletes are notable makes no political statements. However, WP saying that executed criminals are inherently notable could be a political statement. I don't see how this is a problem; if there is substantial coverage on a person who was executed, we should have no problem creating an article about him/her. If there is very little coverage, why should we have an article? Angryapathy (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand how it would make a statement for either for or against the death penalty. Can you please explain what political statement it would be making? Nolamgm (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The death penalty itself is a hot-button issue. By saying that those executed are inherently notable, WP is stating that their deaths were important because the State executed them. Why the death penalty? You've said that we should list everyone receiving life imprisonment in England, so why don't we do that for America? Everyone who is convicted of life without parole is included? How about include an article about everyone is who is on death row? Or those who were on death row? By saying that those executed are inherently notable, you are making a statement that the application of the death penalty is most important action of the judicial system. And that is bias. That is OK for you to think, but having WP make that statement belies NPOV. Instead of making any statements, we can let WP:GNG make the decisons for us. Angryapathy (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I fear any society that does not view its highest possible punishment as the most important action of its criminal justice system. This not so much my personal POV but it is the POV of the criminal justice system in the United States. Individuals subject to capital punishment receive extensive review of their cases by both the court system and the media. The same is not true for everyone who receives a life without parole sentence. For example under Louisiana law most appellate review of a conviction stops two years after a defendant is sentenced. The same is not true of capital defendants. In every state, a capital case goes through the state system twice and the federal system once. Along with the corresponding media coverage, this creates "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A notability guideline does not make a statement about what is important. It simply instructs on how to apply to WP:GNG. I have repeatably used WP:ATHLETE as an example. In providing that "people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport..." are generally notable, WP:ATHLETE does not make a statement that a MLB player is more important than a minor league player. It simply recognizes the fact that someone who has played MLB will genuinely have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" while someone who only played in the minors will not. In regards to your question regarding extension of the proposed guideline to other individuals presently and formerly on death row, I submit the later are probably already included in WP as a group while the former might have problems with the extremely problematic WP:ONEEVENT guideline and the current equally problematic WP:BLP1E policy. I don't know how a crime and bifurcated trial can be considered a "single event" but I do not beleive there is consensus yet on this issue. In closing, I apologize for using the term "inherently notable" in this RfC and my thread above. I was somewhat unfamiliar with WP policies at guidelines at the time this discussion started. I see now I should have requested to make a guideline amendment and avoided the term "inherently notable." Nolamgm (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the supplementary notability guidelines work both ways. Yes, if someone meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:CREATIVE you can be confident they are notable, and need not spend much effort searching out references to prove it; but in some cases these extra guidelines are there to set a higher bar than the GNG, because that would be too permissive. For instance, any TV presenter, singer or election candidate can show a lot of press cuttings because of the nature of the job, so WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:POLITICIAN set a higher standard for people claiming notability on those grounds. If the GNG could trump them, those supplementary guidelines would be pointless.

WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:Existence ≠ Notability are essays on the same theme - that there is more to encyclopedic notability than just the existence of multiple reliable sources.

There are over 15,000 murders a year in the US alone, most of which attract media coverage; we clearly don't need articles on every one, and WP:N/CA is an attempt to help decide suitable criteria, more demanding than the GNG.

When we come to executions, I think the same applies, though it is more arguable. There have been >1,000 in the US since 1976. The subject is certainly important enough for extended coverage, with articles covering numbers of executions, maybe by state, developments in the pro- and anti- capital punishment debate; but I do not myself think encyclopedic coverage requires an article like Tyrone Delano Gilliam, Jr. for each and every one, complete with details of the crime, appeals, condemned man's last words etc. JohnCD (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criminals and WP:BLP1E

Why is there a lot of editors that say that a criminal is notable because of the crime, trial, whatever else it took to get a result, and the result (or two of those) gets a criminal out of BLP1E? Even though they seem to not realize it, they are saying that every criminal should get an article. With every criminal, there is more than the crime, but that it in no way gets it out of one event. Both the issue that Location brought up above and this issue was brought up in an AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. You've erected a straw man to attack. Of course every criminal is not notable, but the GNG and ONEEVENT doesn't mean that a criminal has to have someone's thesis written about his life or a major motion picture made about his exploits before he meets the notability guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a couple of examples might help (or confuse the issue) Bernard Madoff esstially led a pretty quiet life. Yes there were articles on his business going back 20 years, but they were hardly "events" - he didn't have an article until Dec. 11, 2008 when he confessed to a $50 Billion Ponzi Scheme (I know because I started the article). Should he not have an article because of 1E? BTW the article was one of the top 100 articles viewed for a couple of months.

Another article I started Danny Pang (financier) could be looked at as a 1E. He only stole $100 million, and then just yesterday committed apparent suicide. 1E? Well the Wall Street Journal had a series of articles on him (some on the front page), which will probably win a Pulitzer Prize. But I think he is obviously notable despite the apparent 1E, if only for the bizarre aspects of the case. OK, make it 1.5E - his stripper wife was murdered by a hitman (DP's lawyer was arrested for it but got off). DP was clearly out of town at the time of the murder and not tried, but pleads the 5th at the trial.

Madoff example: it clearly belongs in Wikipedia even though it's close to 1E

Pang example: I think it belongs in Wikipedia, even if it is considered 1E, but... Smallbones (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

JC, don't put words in my mouth. Joe Chill (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Deal with the substance of the objection, then. As far as words in anyone's mouth, "they are saying that..." is part of your opening post. Choose more precise words, rather than generalizations, (every? Really? Who on earth said that?) to maximize the focus on the real issues. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"but the GNG and ONEEVENT doesn't mean that a criminal has to have someone's thesis written about his life or a major motion picture made about his exploits before he meets the notability guidelines" I never said that. That's what I mean by don't put words in my mouth. Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can we get better examples?

One of the possible criteria in this guideline that would support creating an article about a perpetrator is: The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role (for example, John Hinckley, Jr.). Is Hinckley really a useful example for this criterion? He would already have been covered by the previously listed criterion, The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities. I would think that a better example for this criterion would be someone like Jeffrey Dahmer, who became notorious for the kinds of crimes he committed and how he committed them, but whose victims' names were not widely noted by the public.

Another section of the guideline states: As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Thus, attempts at inclusion prompted by appearance in the press should not be excluded if notability can be otherwise asserted. The latter statement has a footnote that says: See, for example, Adrienne Shelly. However, Shelly was the subject of a Wikipedia article for months before she was murdered. Granted, it was only of stub quality before her death, but I don't see any evidence that anyone tried to delete the article or challenged her notability after her death. So I don't understand what this example is used for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Metropolitan90's idea of using Jeffrey Dahmer as example in point 3 of the Perp section and John Hinckley, Jr. as example in point 2 of the Perp section. Any objections? Location (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Those seem fine to me, but both are US-centric. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • There isn't any reason why multiple examples couldn't be used. How about also using Beverley Allitt in Perp #3? Not sure of any non-American examples for #2. Location (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I think the use of multiple examples selected from different countries would be appropriate. For #2 (perpetrators whose victims were famous), here are a few possibilities: Mehmet Ali Ağca, Gavrilo Princip, Yigal Amir, and André Dallaire. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Given that there was no objection, I went ahead and made the changes. Location (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I added Adrienne Shelly (and wrote the stub and most of the text of current article on her) and I think she's a perfect example. "...Shelly was the subject of a Wikipedia article for months before she was murdered"—exactly. The criterion language refers to someone who could have been the subject of an article even without having been a victim. The criterion you flag highlights that if the subject couldn't have sustained an autonomous article prior to being a victim, they're probably not a good subject of an article simply because they are a victim. Shelly is a person who properly was the subject of an article before her horrible murder. She's thus the poster child for a person who should be kept under the criterion. I think maybe you're looking for the opposite example, a person who fails the criterion by being a victim but who isn't independently notable apart form their victim status. That would also be instructive, but is much harder to find a good example of to cite because your would have to cite a red link and it's rather distasteful in context, e.g., "X", who was murdered, shouldn't have an article because..." Think about that person's family reading that example. Ugg.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked her description in light of this thread. See diff. To this could be added the opposite example, i.e., of someone who fails the criterion, but I'd be careful with human dignity here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• In regard to the use of Adrienne Shelly in the victims section, I now understand what Fuhghettaboutit was trying to do. However, I believe that a better example would be someone who (1) would have been notable enough for an article based on their activities before becoming a crime victim; (2) became the victim of a crime; (3) had their article nominated for deletion, preferably on a claim that the person was non-notable; and (4) had their article kept on the grounds that the person was in fact notable because of their pre-victimization activity. Adrienne Shelly meets criteria 1 and 2, and I guess 4 because her article has in fact been kept, but not 3 because her article was never nominated for deletion. In other words, I'm looking for a victim whose notability was challenged but eventually upheld. I can't think of one myself, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• I like the addition of Phil Spector under #1. Would it be acceptable to add Roscoe Arbuckle, too? Non-US examples? Location (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to perp section

The first point of the perp section currently states: "They are notable for something beyond the crime itself. Perpetrators of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Perpetrator notability is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question." Is there any objection to moving the second and third sentences to the introduction of the perp section right before "Editors should consider..." since those statements apply to all three points, not just the first one? It would also be more consistent with the beginning of the victim section. Location (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that there was no objection, I made the move. I also made a few other minor changes in wording to make the victims and perpetrators sections more consistent with each other. Location (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)