Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
k
keep vote
Line 173: Line 173:
*:[[User:Lofi Gurl|Lofi Gurl]] ([[User talk:Lofi Gurl|talk]]) 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:[[User:Lofi Gurl|Lofi Gurl]] ([[User talk:Lofi Gurl|talk]]) 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{edit conflict}} '''Keep''' - Insane coverage, completely merits an article. —[[User:Atcovi|Atcovi]] [[User talk:Atcovi|(Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Atcovi|Contribs)]] 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{edit conflict}} '''Keep''' - Insane coverage, completely merits an article. —[[User:Atcovi|Atcovi]] [[User talk:Atcovi|(Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Atcovi|Contribs)]] 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' On quality, on notability. Early delete votes were totally shortsighted. [[Special:Contributions/74.73.224.143|74.73.224.143]] ([[User talk:74.73.224.143|talk]]) 02:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:40, 20 December 2024

Luigi Mangione

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

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

WP:BLP1E; see also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luigi Mangione Launchballer 20:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. EF5 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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 Idek mann (talk) 13:38, 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. MB2437 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 StabroTalk • 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 StabroTalk • 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 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]
  • Keep - clearly notable. He will definitely have long term significance. Current coverage is massive. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 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]
Keep, he's a very notable man now. KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 19:07, 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 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luigi_Mangione&oldid=1264040087"