Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Mangione: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 15:57, 21 December 2024

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2024 December 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. It is WP:SNOWing. (non-admin closure) ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 04:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Mangione

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete per nom. E_F⁵ 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deleting will let those in power silence us. 2600:1700:5192:4930:8451:D5CE:E12B:AC93 (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree D'angelo-Barksdale (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't be silly. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is wholly unnecessary, and it has duplicate scope with Killing of Brian Thompson#Suspect. guninvalid (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~As with the MfD, this is probably going to WP:SNOWBALL Delete. Leave it as redirect, if even that.~~ guninvalid (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my !vote to Keep. Yes, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR should apply, but I feel that even if this guy were found innocent, the insane outpouring of coverage around this guy puts him well within WP:GNG and WP:BIO. And WP:N states that notability is transitive, and even if he gets exonerated, the outpouring of support and hatred alike against him will still be notable. It is up to the closer to decide whether the arguments in favor of WP:BLPCRIME are more favorable or in favor of WP:GNG. guninvalid (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Both WP:PERP and WP:GNG are guidelines, and both speak to "presumptions" whether it is presumption of innocence or presumption of notability. I just interpreted WP:GNG as being a general guideline and WP:PERP as being the specific guideline and it made more sense to me to follow the specific guideline. I actually am one of the most active contributors to the Luigi Mangione wiki article by edit count and am not too concerned with the AfD outcome as there is precedent for creating and publishing BLP articles of those accused of crime before any court conviction has been made, such as Dylann Roof. I chose to vote how I best interpreted the wiki guidelines. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:SNG seems to suggest that notability can be established by either WP:GNG or a subject specific SNG such as WP:PERP. Being able to pass either GNG or SNG isn't a guarantee that an article won't be merged or redirected, but it's not that one is somehow more relevant or weighted. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, WP:BLP1E clearly states as the third requirement for omitting someone on that basis 3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. and then proceeds to provide examples. We have significant reliable sources, the content in the article is verifiable and the subject of the article, even in these early days, receives consistent ongoing coverage. Little reason to believe this article won't simply continue to expand. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
second this argument to keep. 62.240.135.5 (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and keep working on the Killing of Brian Thompson article. Reason 1 According to WP:PERPETRATOR, a separate article of someone only known in connection with a crime or trial should not normally be a separate article but may be created "only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." Killing of Brian Thompson currently is 4,107 words, whereas article split criteria is >8,000 words for "May need to be divided or split" per WP:SIZERULE.
Reason 2: WP:PERPETRATOR also does say "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." I do think the subject meets contemporaneous notability, but based on the article size criteria not being met and there being no conviction yet, I do not think there should be an article on this topic yet.
Reason 3: I am also not sure if the historical significance criteria in WP:PERP has been met yet as “Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.” All the reporting on the subject is currently contemporaneous. Maybe the Killing of Brian Thompson article scope could be expanded, or are we not supposed to be putting suspect biographical info there? Wafflefrites (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very clearly notable with the amount of media coverage and large online fanbase- if this were merged into Killing of Brian Thompson then the latter would rapidly become a WP:COAT article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
second this. Links should be littered throughout the two different articles for bias and fact checking instead. The presentation of accurate, fact checked, and unbiased information would be better served if this article was kept and meticulously cross referenced instead of deleted. 62.240.135.5 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
third this. Meticulously cross reference. Content is significant, subject is now a notable public figure with consistent ongoing coverage. The motivation for the crime is unusual, noteworthy, well-documented, and historic, with sustained coverage around his role. 172.91.132.21 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E Andre🚐 23:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. Wikipedia's longstanding consensus is not to have a standalone article on a person accused of a crime who has not yet been found guilty. For now, we have not seen either condition met for a standalone article on a perpetrator per WP:CRIM: The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or 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, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Thompson was not a "renowned national or international figure" prior to his killing, and we are not yet at the point of weighing the "historic significance" of the event. Furthermore, creating this page treads on WP:CRIM's guidance that Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. If/when Mangione is found guilty, this page can come right back. For now, the redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson#Suspect should be restored and protected to enforce this consensus pending a verdict. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dclemens1971 You've quoted quite a bit of WP:CRIME here, but you've missed important parts sadly that make your claim of consensus troubling. In particular, the first passage you quoted (the bit about renowned national or international figures, etc) is only relevant if this is true: Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:. We do, of course, have an "appropriate existing article" (Killing of Brian Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), so that whole bit (and your arguments based on it) is moot. That also includes the "alleged perpetrator" quotation, which is really just a rehash of WP:BLPCRIME.
  If we turn to WP:BLPCRIME then, it states For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. The argument for exclusion falls apart when you consider that Luigi Mangione is definitely a "public figure" and WP:WELLKNOWN with the amount of scrutiny they have received since they were arrested and charged for the killing. Turning our attention back to WP:CRIME, we're left with article size being a potential reason to WP:SPINOUT to a separate article. Killing of Brian Thompson has certainly grown in size in just the past two weeks since the killing took place, and size concerns will only become more significant as more sources and information about Luigi is released in reliable sources. But I'd argue keeping the biography in the event article are WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP concerns: certainly some discussion of the alleged killer is relevant in the event article, but there will be concerns if his biography expands to things beyond those relevant to the event itself (and certainly if things aren't proportional to the overall event). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, that's completely incorrect. Look at the articles of assassins of political leaders, like John Wilkes Booth or even attempted assassins like Thomas Matthew Crooks. Brian Thompson was an extremely important individual and his death should result in the same, as in an article on Thompson, an article on his death, and an article on Mangione EarthDude (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Without taking a position on article deletion, citing those people is not that helpful because WP:BLPCRIME is about living people being accused of crime. Neither Booth nor Crooks is alive. HorseDonkey (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Living people accused of assassination attempts of major figures also have Wikipedia articles. For example, the second assassination attempt of Trump in 2024 during his golf game, has an article and so does Ryan Wesley Routh, the assailant, who's very much still alive. This article on Mangione also checks out with WP:GNG and WP:BLPPUBLIC. EarthDude (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreating at a later date if Killing of Brian Thompson gets too long or something changes to justify a separate article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - absolute given. notable given the coverage around him. More coverage is focused on him than the target. 97.115.189.88 (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Guy is famous enough by now. Then again, Dclemens1971 makes a valid point. The thing is that it is only sometimes that we get really picky about our guidelines and it's especially so in the case of crime/criminal, and I don't really see the point of that pickiness. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the impulse to go WP:IAR here, but the redirect both meets informational needs and upholds the consensus guidelines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My main reason is because of WP:BLPCT. BLPs are contentious topics per arbitration enforcement committee. With contentious topics, you must “comply with all applicable policies and guidelines”. Having come from over a year of editing in another CT area on Wikipedia, I definitely know that Ignore All Rules does not apply to contentious topics. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Except WP:BLPCT applies to the deceased, not the alleged perpetrator. GeekInParadise (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I think you may have linked the wrong thing. WP:BLPCT is talking about BLPs being contentious topics. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.-🐦DrWho42👻 02:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per Dclemens1971. There is no need yet for an article about the suspect. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't have to add every detail about him that the media reports. The Killing of Brian Thompson limits narrowly what we can say about the suspect, because we are only including things related to the crime and his alleged involvement. And that's how it should be. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Chessrat's reasoning. Kyleroo (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Locke_Cole's response above. The article is already long as it is. It's inevitable that more information will continue to flow in especially in the coming weeks. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Hawaii, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Chessrat's reasoning. [[Comfr (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep He is clearly notable and is receiving plenty of media coverage. Here's a couple of articles that are primarily focused on him and not the killing [1][2][3][4][5][6] There's currently content in the Killing of Brian Thompson article (i.e. the last paragraph of the #Possible motives and views section) regarding his views/political views, etc. that are more appropriate for a biography than for the event article. Some1 (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Just because newspapers are reporting things does not mean they are encyclopedic. Kingturtle = (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - We’re in luck, in this case what they’re reporting is encyclopedic. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:CRIME articles on perpetrators are deemed notable if motivation for the crime is unusual - Mangione has had extensive media coverage about his motives allegedly being a revenge killing. The execution of the crime has also been covered as being meticulously planned. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies to this page as the event is significant and the individual's role is substantial - there seems to be more coverage on him than the actual victim. jolielover♥talk 05:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dclemons. Killing of Brian Thompson#Suspect already has all the content, because it is all relevant to the event. The sources above are still within the sphere of the killing and its background and response. A WP:DUPLICATE WP:REDUNDANT page or is not warranted. Reywas92^Talk 05:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that is what i am leaning toward.--In 2011, this killer had an article (and is still in isolation, even though a model prisoner). Wiki's guidelines have not changed significantly since then, regarding suspects. The killer had an article two days after the crime - and a year before the first conviction. 2001:2020:32F:E6A2:E8A1:CBF8:BC0:B10E (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Responsibly written and very well sourced. The subject is receiving new reliable coverage from quality sources every day. There is intense interest, and this responsibly written article is a strong example of the excellence of Wikipedia in providing reliable and current information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be allowed to continue, collecting the best sources as they arrive. Should coverage not continue long term, only then should it possibly be redirected as a flash in the pan lacking ongoing interest. Given the current ongoing coverage, it is not reasonable to assume that there will not be long term interest. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson#Suspect. A person who is accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. Wikipedia should not have a separate article about a suspect who is only notable for the crime he is accused of, before conviction. see WP:CRIME in addition to WP:SUSPECT. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fixed subsection indicator, which appears to have been signed by Comfr—that is, by writing four tildes. Kyleroo (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously very notable.CallumPaxton (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is clear to me is that he is not only notable but will only become more notable over time in the event of his trial and any ensuing protests.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricmaster (talk • contribs) 13:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson per WP:BLP and connected. Sjö (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson for the time being, per Wafflefrites, Reywas92, abd Cameron Dewe. I agree that WP:BLPCT, WP:CRIME, WP:DUP, are WP:REDUNDANT all apply here. Of course, the full article can be restored to the mainspace if and when future events/circumstances warrant it, but there's no need to be hasty. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Changing !vote based on increased media coverage. WP:GNG is clearly met, and the page has expanded to the point where a separate article is justified. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Idek mann (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You could make an article about the impact that Luigi has had alone. AdrianHObradors (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has received a lot of attention for his suspected role in killing that CEO. However, even outside of that event, he has also received much attention that focuses on him solely as an individual. Articles on Mangione's political views, his background, and also how the populace has responded to his actions. Although one could argue that recentism comes into play, I don't think the interest surrounding him will necessarily die out; especially with a documentary on the way. I guess we could wait until mid-January and see whether he's still relevant or not.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have an article on Dzokhar Tsarnaev and Derek Chauvin, who are about as BLP1E as you can get. Mangione has received international media attention, and has become the subject of a notable antiestablishment political movement: [7]. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 16:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This event is not remotely comparable to the murder of George Floyd, nor the Boston Marathon bombing. Also worth nothing both of those individuals were found guilty in highly publicised, discussed and protested trials. MB 2437 22:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect (at this time) to Killing of Brian Thompson as this is all he is notable for, he does not have independent notability, note as well, he has not yet been found guilty, so he may not even be notable for thisSlatersteven (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of attention in the media. We have articles for even obscure topics, this as an internet meme is notable, let alone the crime side of it. Bedivere (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is helpful in knowing Luigi's life up to the incident and to help understand why he killed the CEO. Rager7 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that justification is that we do not know if he killed the CEO. He has not been found guilty. Moreover, we do not know his motivations. This page simply allows people to assume those things and make implications. Clear violation of policy. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful with your wording. Wikipedia cannot say he killed anyone until a court of law says so. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Eadweard Muybridge “shot and killed Major Harry Larkyns” and was never convicted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sheer amount of media attention he's received is enough to justify this in my opinion. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mangione was something of a folk hero even before he was identified, with look-alike contests. Despite the fact that he hasn't been convicted, his life apart from the (alleged) killing has been subject to considerable coverage in reliable sources. He meets the GNG. Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has generated this news coverage, look alike contests, "folk hero" status as you say, etc. solely because of his status as a suspect/accused in the killing. That's the definition of WP:BLP1E. I have no doubt there will be a future article on Mangione, but as long as he's not pled guilty or been convicted, he should be covered as part of the alleged crime. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not though.
Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event - as Chicdat mentioned, we have articles on Derek Chauvin and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. That's because sources discuss Chauvin's and Tsarnaev's lives more broadly - just as they have discussed Mangione's life more broadly.

The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual - Mangione has become a folk hero. Even if they were acquitted, they're unlikely to fade into obscurity.

The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented - Thompson's murder has become significant in way many other murders are not. NY is planning to create a special line for CEOs who feel unsafe. And Mangione has been charged with the murder now, so his role appears to be substantial.
Guettarda (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a trout to the nom for completely skipping over the part of BLP1E that requires "3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Obviously, BLP1E does not apply to this person, who had a substantial and well-documented role in a significant event. Even if he's not convicted, he is notable as a suspect. Passes WP:GNG by a mile with sustained international news coverage. Shouldn't be merged with the article about the murder itself, as the biography of the suspect would overwhelm the article about the murder. Levivich (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have an article for the two would-be Trump assassins. Luigi is such an infamous guy at this point, he definetally deserves his own article. KILLGOESE (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (1) as noted above by several other experienced editors, there is now significant coverage about the subject beyond the crime itself, and (2) ignore all rules if the deletion would be so controversial as to harm the project. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore all rules does not apply to BLP or BLPCRIM. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read over the twelve words at WP:IAR and didn’t see any that exempted BLP. Regardless, there’s not really any valid BLP concerns so far worth considering. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No need for a separate page. Reflecktor (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been massive media coverage worldwide, and it shows no sign of abating. Edwardx (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No sign of abating" is hyperbole. His name has seen a significant drop in trending. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may probably go up/down due to court developments. His indictment charge recently went up to first degree murder, so I expect that to be breaking news. Wafflefrites (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So many different reliable sources talking about this mans life, job, schooling, beliefs, etc. Definitely notable. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Luigi is an individual outside of the assassination, and there are individual wikipedia pages for many criminals/terrorists/assassins separate from the page about the crime specifically. Iristhescorpio (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of the rationales cited for deletion no longer apply to Luigi Mangione. As noted by others. WP:BLP1E allows for the article per criterion #3 (the event is significant and his role in it is central and well-documented). He has become too famous/notorious for WP:BLPCRIME to apply, whether found guilty or not, he is already a notable person. Sources are, for example, discussing his celebrity/folk hero status - [8][9][10][11][12][13]. This article [14] for example says that his popularity has already far eclipsed any of the would-be Trump assassins who are not household names (and those two persons have their own articles). WP:PERPETRATOR also permits this article through perpetrator criterion #2 - the presumed motivation is unusual and notable and has sparked wider discussion about the health care system in the US. I see no reason to delete or redirect it. Hzh (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At this point in time Mangioni and the killing have both become far more than even the normal suspects/crimes that are notable for Wikipedia. The second and third prongs of BLP1E would seem to no longer bar creation. We still have to be very careful to not presume guilt per WP:BLPCRIME, but a standalone article, given the overwhelming amount of sources, including many which delve into information that would not be suitable on the killing page, is probably warranted. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also as per guidelines at WP:CRIME which state: "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." In my view this article has been created too soon. Mangione has not yet been convicted in court. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if he is found not guilty, the arrest, trial, and information around him would likely be notable enough to have an article. MatthewNewHouse (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. He will definitely have long term significance. Current coverage is massive. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dclemens1971 Pdubs.94 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Wikiuser3315 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue is... WP:BLP1E doesn't apply anymore as Luigi has been declared a "hero" online. He has an ample amount of coverage both in context of the event and as an individual. [15], [16], [17]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This. 2A02:3038:20A:5C1E:569F:1175:F170:9544 (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As many others have said above me, this massive coverage makes him notable enough to qualify for an article. Though I do think the article doesn't currently have much to offer that isn't already, or couldn't be placed in in the article on the murder itself FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So is keep or delete your suggestion? Eg224 (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While innocent until proven guilty, the historical charges and media coverage of this person justify encyclopedic history keeping. Onikaburgers (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Motivation for the crime and the public discussion surrounding it is unique Yung Doohickey (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Especially right now while more and more information comes out about him specifically not related to the event. If we get 6 months down the line and all the information on here is the same as the article of the event then sure, a merge could be considered. But while the background of this is expanding and growing we need a place for information on him specifically. MatthewNewHouse (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't need a separate article at the moment, and the length is such that it isn't adding much new information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bonus suggestion!: Redirect and move back to Drafts. The article itself is indeed very well written, but even if WP:BLPCRIME applies, if this guy is found guilty, this article could come back to the mainspace. If deleting and redirecting are deemed necessary, at least we can preserve the draft as is in case it becomes worthy. guninvalid (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EarthDude (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold keep Eg224 (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the man is very clearly notable. IncompA 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's a very notable man now. KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have an article on Ryan Wesley Routh, that survived an AfD. Ryan Routh has not been convicted yet of the crime (for which he is notable for). Yet that article remains. IMO, Luigi Mangione is far, far, far more notable that Ryan Wesley Routh, to the point where there is more coverage on him than his actual crime or the CEO now. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 19:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This guy is super notable. OsageOrange (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin. That AfD debate took place long before Chauvin was convicted. If anything, there is much greater coverage of Mangione's life by reliable sources than Chauvin's. We have many biographies of high profile people accused of but not convicted of crimes. Other factors are that the apparent motivation for the killing is highly unusual, and the sociological phenomenon of widespread support for an accused assassin is almost unprecedented in the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy. Eg224 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the event that this AFD is somehow successful and the result is this article gets deleted, I would suggest moving it to draft space so that it can be continued to be worked on, where more and more notability will be demonstrated over a long period of time (therefore this article passes the WP:10Y test with flying colors). I personally think this article should be kept, though not for the same reasons as (some of) the other people that have also voted keep (simply because they all completely forgot about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS somehow) but I don't know. Time will tell eventually. 92.19.129.131 (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guy has received a lot of attention, arguably a lot more than Thomson, and many sources have a heavy focus on Mangione himself, not just the killing. Cortador (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR caution against but do not outright prohibit creating articles/content on living people whose main claim to fame is being accused but not convicted of a crime. It's fair to say that notability requirements for such an article are much higher than run-of-the-mill GNG. Even with these heightened requirements, I think notability has been met. Magnione has continued to receive intense coverage for weeks and there is not sign of this coverage stopping any time soon. Further, this coverage has gone far beyond the usual biographical coverage of people accused of violent crimes; you have reliable sources like the New Yorker, AP News, and The Atlantic (just to name a few) providing in-depth coverage of how he has become a "folk hero." The coverage has gone far beyond Mangione's alleged role in the death of Brian Thompson. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E nothwithstanding, I believe that the separate article should be kept for two reasons: First, because of the unusual amount and depth of sources dealing with the subject in the context of his prominence as a "folk hero" of sorts, even before he was identified; second, because of the unique context of the crime this person has been accused of, which has painted him as a sort of "character" in media such as memes, TV and news (this has been documented and I believe it meets notability guidelines). CVDX (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At this point, WP:GNG is satisfied to a degree that outweighs the other guidelines mentioned. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E *not* applying: a significant event with large coverage and cultural impact. WP:1E also makes it clear that the policy really just aims to prevent stubs being made for every single news article. There is a massive, massive outpouring of interest into this subject from a massive array of reliable sources. Reading over the article, I think it’s spotless and is a remarkable example of WP:NPOV in action: an article that gives equal time to statements of fact from verifiable, reliable sources. The only real issue I see is some weasel words in the “views” section but I think that can easily be reworded. Please keep this gem! 50.39.97.171 (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For single-event issues like this, I almost never vote this way, but this is an exception. His meteoric rise to fame is astounding, with him already being comparable to Donald Trump & Kamala Harris for the degree of attention. BOTTO_(T•C) 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At this point I think this is a WP:SNOW KEEP. While claims of WP:BLP1E brought in a lot of early votes, the overwhelming amount of coverage this subject and this story has gotten makes it something it would be irresponsible for Wikipedia to ignore. Trackinfo (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But there's a difference between Wikipedia ignoring the subject and merging the article scope into Killing of Brian Thompson. A lot of the topics about Mangione can still be discussed on that article as well; having an article specifically for Mangione may be unnecessary. guninvalid (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - A full biography of the alleged killer would be inappropriate in an article about the event itself, see WP:SCOPE. As a policy concern, there's WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. If the event article were to have a full biography it would likely be at the expense of the event itself. There's also the WP:COAT concern expressed above by @Chessrat. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR concerns are valid, but at this point in time this subject has recived far, far more coverage than the actual event, and as such it seems WP:GNG has been safely met. If anything a reverse merge could be suggested in the future. Yet as this is a current news event, it might be to soon to tell. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quintessential WP:BLP1E Udder1882 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a case of WP:BLP1E, Suspect getting heavy coverage in the news,likely the most talked about person in news right now. Why not give him an article? Justcgi (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I acknowledge the WP:BLP1E guideline, but the rule explains in itself on bullet point 3 that a subject can be deemed worthy of a separate article because of documentation and intense significance. The effect Mangione has had on modern American politics will be felt and is already palpably influencing public interest. Case in point, a person was arrested for repeating Mangione's bullet casing messages. Luigi Mangione himself has also been discussed by the president elect, the public, and the media more than the event at this point. There is a real encyclopedic value to chronicling information about Mangione. Echoing other user's comments here, Luigi has sufficiently passed WP:GNG, but the worthiness of this article may be more apparent long after the buzz passes over. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 15:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a political !vote as what I really recommend is turning this back into a redirect. I do not agree with most arguments of the keep advocates. Both the coverage in the sources and the content we have created thus far are still such that there is literally nothing due for inclusion in this article that would not be okay in the parent article, and WP:PERPETRATOR suggests not having the article before a potential conviction (or unless particular considerations of content organization make it genuinely necessary—not currently the case). This is a premature half-done split: This article was created by wholesale copying of content from the parent article as the source article. Some of this content was then indeed removed from the source article so as to enact moving content, but these changes at the source article are not especially good for that article (I would have !voted oppose in a split discussion for this reason) and the level of summarization there is low. As a result, there is too much duplication and scope overlap. Some content has since been added here which really should have gone there. Also, some silly content had been added here about Pokemon-related fringe beliefs, which is exactly the type of additions this article invites. But there is no point resisting. One more time it has been proven that notability means guaranteed inclusion and that the Wikipedia:Notability provision that [existence of notability] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page is essentially dead letter. I am not going to !vote delete/redirect, knowing that this outcome is obviously a fantasy, and the situation is not terrible, it just isn't optimal. And that's fine.—Alalch E. 16:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't believe WP:BLP1E is being interpreted correctly here. And if Haliey Welch has an article of her own, then surely this shows the flexibility of WP:BLP1E MaskedSinger (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a nice essay at WP:BLP1ENOT. —Alalch E. 17:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know @Alalch E. . I read it :) MaskedSinger (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's absolutely no reason to delete that article. Equalness1 (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely necessary article with the amount of media attention and specific focus on the perpetrator, as well as the support he has gotten. Plectiscus (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information? On my Wikipedia? Tasteless. 24.144.188.223 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned, BLP1E 3 criteria for deletion is not met. This is a Lee Harvey Oswald level of single-event notability, plus his notable family is another factor. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Manginoe meets GNG criteria and is Lee Harvey Oswald-level notable. cookie monster 755 19:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Mr. Mangione has widespread and continuing coverage in worldwide media. His case is relevant to both the issues of crime, as well as the insurance industry. And he shares a secondary but not insubstantial interest to those interested in fugitives. He is very notable. Juneau Mike (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of this article has been getting a huge amount of media coverage, and not all of it is even about his alleged role in the assassination. There's no way this can be even remotely qualified for deletion at this point. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is trending now and it is a very high profile killing with a lot behind it, deleting is censoring history. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I am in agreement with arguments presented by @GoatLordServant. In addition, my personal editing goal will be to find and contribute material to the Luigi Mangione article that will provide further evidence of the historical, political and public interest significance of this event, which I think is proving to be substantial.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The event was the Killing of Brian Thompson. The wiki article for discussion is a biography. When you say “significance of this event”, do you think maybe we should create a Trial of Luigi Mangione? Like Trial of Derek Chauvin? Wafflefrites (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I say event, I am referring more to a rising social movement about corporations and insurance companies that has arisen from the killing. This could include increased public debate about the issue, responses by insurance companies, bills submitted at the state or local level to make changes in health care policy. Further, it could include analysis of the terrorism charge in the killing of a corporate figure. Of course, a Trial of Luigi Mangione page would certainly serve as an important public record.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Luigi Mangione is now notable enough. He has been mentioned multiple times in news and other media all over the world, for a long time. He clearly meets the notability requirement for a Wikipedia article. --Engineering Guy (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has met several criteria of high-profile individual set forth in Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, and he has reached celebrity status by some measure. Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's a shame how idolized he became, but it certainly made him relevant enough. Lucafrehley (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as, at this point, he is considerably notable as an individual. —theMainLogan (t•c) 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep can see argument for WP:BLP1E but it has a carveout for significant attention. Might be a case of WP:RECENTISM but the media circus around Luigi might justify this article at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- article needs significant work, it looks like an indiscriminate mess of random details of his life. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PERP makes it clear that if the victim is WP:WELLKNOWN (CEO of the 11th largest company would be well known or important) OR the crime is unusual or historically significant that they meed the criteria for a page. I would argue that over two weeks of non-stop news coverage, the fact that it's not normal for a CEO of this large of a company to be shot, and the fact that he's become a meme would have him meet this criteria. GeekInParadise (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at merge into the killing article. Already far too much overlap related to the capture, and trial that is already covered on killing (like, 80% of this article) . Beyond that, clearly is only a BLP1E, scraping the bits and details of his life show nothing notable beyond his role in the killing. Masem (t) 00:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Masem Hey, just out of curiosity, how do you reconcile WP:BLP1E's third criteria with your !vote? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two reasons: in the case of John Hinckley Jr. or someone like Lee Harvey Oswald, there are years following the event that try to make sense of why the person took the actions they did. While they are only notable for that one event, there's a large volume of details beyond the event itself (not just related to their life before the event) that are covered by criminologists and other experts. Second, at the current time, the article for Mangione is pretty much duplicating what is in the killing event article, as well as suffering from the overly excessive coverage that is not in line with NOTNEWS. Eliminate all the duplicate material and you're left with a routine biography (birth, school, career) that is being overly detailed because of all the news scraping that is going on (again, a NOTNEWS problem). Until there is significantly more about Mangione that is in relation to the killing but would not be part of what's covered on the killing page (as there is for Hinkley and Oswald), there's simply no need for a separate article. Maybe in the future yes, but we don't use crystal balls to guess that.
    And keep in mind, there are cases of clear BLP1E that we don't have articles on purpose for the killer, such as Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or Brenton Tarrant in the Christchurch mosque shootings, despite the fact that their life had been similarly documented as much as Mangione.
    I'm also very worried about the way that Mangione is being seen as a hero or the like in social media circles and how that is influencing the editing of his article. I cannot point to any specific edit or editor, but it does feel there's a push to document him in this way. This makes it a larger BLP (not just BLP1E) issue to make sure that we're not being overly favorable towards how he is written about, and it is far easier to keep the right POV in the context of the killing article (which also already covers this social media reaction factor). — Masem (t) 05:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your vote is your vote, but regarding your last point, without being able to point to specific edits as evidence for the article itself presenting him as a hero, its sounds like you kind of just WP:DONTLIKEIT (with "it" being positive public reactions)? Peachseltzer (hello!) 20:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has gotten much media coverage since the event. Also, conviction of Thompson's killing is not required for Mangione's article to stick around on Wikipedia, either (Lee Harvey Oswald was never convicted of anything relating to JFK's assassination, but Oswald still has a robust Wiki page). Canuck^{89 (Gab with me) or visit my user page} 00:38, December 20, 2024 (UTC)
Keep More than notable enough at this point and there’s already documentaries that are being made specifically focusing on his whole life. (talk) DovahDuck 07:45 PM, December 19, 2024 (EST)
Keep Mangione's notability is already signficant and is growing. Much of the news coverage focuses on him rather than the crimes he's been charged with. It would be ridiculous not to have an article about him when there will no doubt be articles on books and films about him. For precedence, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has an article. — HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the subject of this article has generated enough public discourse and significant coverage on his own that it may overwhelm the Killing of Brian Thompson article. RachelTensions (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel the burden is on the nominator to explain the reason for deletion in the RfD discussion. Deleting this would be completely asinine. Lofi Gurl (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep - Insane coverage, completely merits an article. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On quality, on notability. Early delete votes were totally shortsighted. 74.73.224.143 (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Luigi Mangione is more than notable enough for his own article. Deleting it would be a foolish mistake. Anthonyt31201 (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's too notable lol. Y'all should delete that Sommer Ray article though. Strawberries1 (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the future, the fact that his notability was in contention will seem ridiculous. MrsKoma (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mangione is notable now and is covered by all legacy media. PatrickChiao (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is broad media coverage regarding specifically Luigi Mangione, a separate page will be needed to keep up with the information. J.pshine5t (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seriously, this is even a question? 32.209.69.24 (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson - Redirect for now. Non-compliant with WP:BLPCRIME at this point. Mr. Mangione has not yet been convicted of the crimes for which he is charged. Maybe re-create after he is convicted. Danzigmusicfan1 (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - He's very notable both in the legacy media as well as in common discourse. It just makes sense to have an article dedicated to the subject. Ashtremble (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Mangione is notable and his WP:Bio full biography is inappropriate in killing of Brian Thompson, agree w User:Chessrat that would become a WP:coat- Should reduce the section about Mangione in killing of Brian Thompson to bare bones, as I agree w guninvalid there is duplication. Wondring why after 4 days this discussion is still open. The vote is clear!--Wuerzele (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is an increasing amount of notability beyond BLP1E, and as long as the language is written correctly, shouldn't be a BLPCRIME or SUSPECT issue. No doubt other sections such as his public image will expand rapidly over time. CNC (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WereWolf (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Conditions 2 & 3 of BLP1E are not met. The article's subject is notable enough for his own article. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. There is no doubt that Luigi Mangione is a notable enough figure to warrant his own Wikipedia article. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielTheMusicMaster (talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has become a somewhat major internet phenomenon, and that coverage is significant and would not fit in an article about the killing itself. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think a legitimate concern others have pointed out in this discussion is the amount of overlap between the murder article and this one, it would definitely be more manageable to limit discussion of his arrest to one article and leave a summary with a link on the other. I've posted about it on the murder article's talk page. CVDX (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, much like Ryan Wesley Routh. DonBeroni (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely insane amounts of coverage, he's generating tons of reactions and discussions about reform/violence/copycats/etc far beyond just the killing itself, and the trial is shaping up to be another media frenzy that'll probably get its own article someday. --Aabicus (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tons of notable coverage, and it's becoming more of a cultural commentary than many other assassins out there. Lexrama (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notable coverage of him has gone far beyond what would make sense as an addition to Killing of Brian Thompson. I would prefer to see the overlap between this article and the Brian Thompson article addressed not by deleting this article, but editing that article. Peachseltzer (hello!) 20:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has is significant, famous and notable enough to have an article. Javajourney (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is famous enough, Javajourney is correct. (Your welcome.) 98.143.67.244 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most news I've seen regarding the murder feature Luigi's photo and mention him in the title. People on the red carpet are asked about him and his looks, he's been in jail for only one day and he's received 87 pieces of mail and 163 donations already. He's a star. Alecsdaniel (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as major news outlets report on him and have his name in the heading: CNN New York Post BBC CBS New York Times

Laura240406 (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge judiciously to Killing of Brian Thompson. Mangione has zero significant coverage before the death of Brian Thompson. He is a prominent suspect in the death of Brian Thompson. Nothing in his own article can't be said in Killing of Brian Thompson. Keep WP:RECENTISM in mind, boys and girls. We don't make, nor keep, articles solely to tickle our fancies as enthusiasts or ADHD/OCD data compilers. Otherwise one could make countless trivial subarticles ("face of Luigi Mangione", "Luigi Mangione on December 4th 2024", "thirsty Tweets about Luigi Mangione" ad nauseum.) --Animalparty! (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is part of a larger significant series of events regarding healthcare in the US. Not BLP1E. –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like it or not, he’s now notable (even if notable here means notorious). The mayor has gone out of his way to publicly involve himself in his storyline. Also you didn’t give a rationale for deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.