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
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 178: Line 178:


:'''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. [[Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson#Overlap_between_this_article_and_Luigi_Mangione|I've posted about it on the murder article's talk page.]] [[User:CVDX|CVDX]] ([[User talk:CVDX|talk]]) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''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. [[Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson#Overlap_between_this_article_and_Luigi_Mangione|I've posted about it on the murder article's talk page.]] [[User:CVDX|CVDX]] ([[User talk:CVDX|talk]]) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' Clearly notable, much like [[Thomas Matthew Crooks]].[[User:DonBeroni|DonBeroni]] ([[User talk:DonBeroni|talk]]) 17:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:14, 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]

Keep Idek mann (talk) 13:38, 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 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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). Canuck89 (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 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. 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luigi_Mangione&oldid=1264130579"