Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

Crime

2019 Goodfield arson

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

Can we either simply delete this article, or remove and revdel all references to the accused (and delete all mentions of his name elsewhere). This is a 9-year-old who wasn't even convicted, it fails WP:SUSPECT (and WP:BLP1E), and shouldn't be named and shamed even if the article itself isn't named after him. Fram (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Illinois. Fram (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete On top of the above concerns, this never seems to have moved beyond police blotter coverage in reliable sources other than a slow-newws-day piece in the NZ Herald. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some academic criminology sources discussing this, focusing on how young the perpetrator was, which indicates to me that this probably warrants an article... someday. From looking at it the case was never dropped it just got caught up in what I expect is the extremely complicated circumstances involved in prosecuting a 9 year old for mass murder. If/when he does get convicted and if there is then later coverage that is in depth and retrospective I would not be opposed to recreating it. As is this may be too hard to write at the moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt I'm going to be blunt, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:MINORS (as a crime subject, not bright-line as what that essay notes usually) must be invoked here and somehow even though there were edits supposedly removed in November 2020, the minor's name has been kept in the article even though Illinois is damned clear that juvenile offenders charged in juvenile court, such as this subject are never to be named in a case outside very specific cases. It's now been removed from the article body, but I'm asking an admin if they see this to revdel the name if possible. And as for the case itself, this is simply only notable in the Peoria area. Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Alleged Lahore college rape case

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

Fails NEVENT. no WP:INDEPTH coverage. and IMO its, WP:TOOSOOON and WP:THEREISNORUSH

Given the substantial evidence refuting the alleged incident, I propose that we consider the Deletion of this article based on several Wikipedia guidelines:

1. Verifiability: The claims made in the article are contradicted by official reports and statements from recognized authorities such as the FIA and CM Punjab, as reported by Dawn News https://www.dawn.com/news/1865944 and The Nation https://www.nation.com.pk/17-Oct-2024/cm-maryam-clears-mist-on-fake-student-rape-allegations, questioning the verifiability of the current content.

2. BLP: The article's content could potentially harm the reputations of living persons based on unverified and disputed claims, violating the BLP policy that demands rigorous standards for sourcing in contentious cases.

3. NPOV: The article may fail to maintain a neutral point of view, as it presents disputed claims without sufficient context from authoritative sources that challenge these claims.

4. Notability: The ongoing disputes and contradictions regarding the facts suggest that the incident may not meet the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage by reliable sources.

These concerns collectively suggest that the article may not meet Wikipedia's content standards and could merit deletion or significant revision. I recommend opening a discussion for deletion to carefully consider these issues within the community, Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a newscast of information, much less false or speculation. Jinnllee90 (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NEWSEVENT An alleged rape that didn't happen. Or did it? The perpetrator was the school security guard. Or he wasn't. Protests and alleged police brute force and rubber bullets, tear gas, etc. There was an investigation, with mixed findings. The family of the alleged victim said her injuries were actually from a fall at home. — Maile (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Internet, Pakistan, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article does not meet Wikipedia's notability, verifiability, and neutrality standards. The allegations have been refuted by reliable sources. Additionally, it risks violating the BLP policy by presenting unverified claims about living individuals. Ainty Painty (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As an editor who has been keeping their eyes on this one for a while, this is a more complicated subject than it would first appear. Firstly, even if the event is not notable, I would claim that the response was- protesting, activism, and unrest, which received a lot of coverage internationally. Secondly, I would claim that there is a really significant possibility here of people with significant political power and interest in keeping Punjab College's name clean influencing people to give a certain outcome- notice that although the father of the victim has spoken and said it was an accident, the victim herself has not, and consider power dynamics in Pakistan between men and women. Also consider that the security footage has been deleted as per major sources, and that the system in Pakistan may have a significant risk of people in positions of power being able to use their influence in such a way. I am not accusing anyone of anything here, it is just a comment. I would also suggest that a lot of edits on the page have been done by Pakistani IP addresses with very standard ChatGPT-esque comments and attempts to delete- I was interested to see that somebody finally found the correct place to nominate the article for deletion. I think this is all worth bearing in mind when coming to a conclusion on this article. However, the counter argument is that Wikipedia is not a place for primary research, and we are not here to interpret the sources as much as we are to summarise them. As it is, the secondary sources have dismissed the allegations and this is a bit of a null story which deletion would not be an undue response to. I hope I have provided some context and I am being balanced to both sides of this discussion.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very much on WP:BLPCRIME concerns and a wholly unclear narrative; either we have it right and proper or we don't at all, especially considering the current issues regarding WMF. Nate • (chatter) 17:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alleged mean not verified. Its hoax.--Gul Butt (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I can appreciate Spiralwidget's thoughtful perspective, I think in this case WP:BLPCRIME issues and conflicting sourcing issues as relates to WP:Verifiability make it impossible for us to have an article at this time.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Moss Side shooting

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

Fails WP:EVENT. All the coverage is from August-September 2018. No lasting WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and England. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From a search, I can't even find what happened to the two people who were arrested. There is not enough coverage to write an article with a complete picture of the event. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, redirect to List of mass shootings in the United Kingdom#2010s, where it has an entry PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Tirana teen stabbing

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Whilst tragic, it is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. CoconutOctopus talk 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Schools, and Albania. CoconutOctopus talk 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why? it is informative. Lightnightx3x (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For something to exist on Wikipedia it has to meet the notability guidelines. Single incidents like this typically don't as they don't have long-lasting coverage in reliable sources. CoconutOctopus talk 18:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. I's still a tragic event and people deserve to know what happened. Lightnightx3x (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to keep it; see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. CoconutOctopus talk 12:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, many incidents like this have had limited coverage and still have a Wikipedia article. Lightnightx3x (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Procyon117 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I'm sorry a youngster died, but realistically in many parts of the world, a knife fight between kids with a fatality isn't noteworthy, it's just Tuesday. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article can't be deleted just because some people think it's an ordinary thing to happen. The topic is much deeper than that. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This event has received significant coverage in Albania. The media is continuously addressing this topic. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I believe this article should be kept. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]
You are only supposed to !vote once. Please remove your additional "keep" bold-text. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth mentioning the reaction of the public opinion. This event has had a much broader impact than initially expected. Lightnightx3x (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt WP:NOTNEWS applies but this page also has some significant violations of WP:BLPCRIME - I deleted a sentence identifying a juvenile who has not stood trial as "the killer". There are additional issues with the assumption of guilt in article copy that are still problematic though less egregious. Beyond these problems there is no indication that this is anything other than a very unfortunate crime - there's nothing encyclopedically relevant about those. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether it is a remarkable event or not, it is too early to tell. Deletion and if the event proves to be significant it can be rewritten. Why such a hurry? LefterDalaka (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is already significant. It has caused a lot of concern and has been subjected to a lot of media coverage. Lightnightx3x (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most crimes are non-notable even if they cause an immediate sensation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This crime has caused an immediate reaction and widespread shock, showing that it is notable Lightnightx3x (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also it shows that it is notable because of the media significantly covering it. Lightnightx3x (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not have sufficient notability (such things happen on a daily basis, unfortunately), and as per WP:NOTNEWS. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. You don't see fatalities from stabbing fights in Albania every day. Every major news outlet in Albania is reporting this. I wouldn't have made this article if this would be an ordinary thing to happen. You don't see this every day. Also, I don't mean to violate WP:NOTNEWS. It was something shocking. School fights can happen every day, even with knives, but not with a fatality and such a big reaction. Lightnightx3x (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI - replying to every !vote at an AfD is often perceived as WP:BLUDGEONING and is frowned upon. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for informing me. Sorry. Lightnightx3x (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightnightx3x, I appreciate your desire to create new articles. However, you are still new here and have to go through a process of learning and getting experience. When multiple established editors say you are wrong, indeed you are. I would advise you to focus on improving existing articles first, and then as you gain experience, create new ones from scratch. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Shaouni (police officer)

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

A fair quantity of news sources for this event, but the person is otherwise not notable. WP:BLP1E? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. - Donald Albury 22:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skynxnex (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Helvenston

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

Delete and redirect to 2004 Fallujah ambush, the redirect target for the other 3 victims of the ambush. Coverage of Helvenston is in relation to the ambush or subsequent events. Otherwise he was one of thousands of individuals killed during the Iraq War. His notability is due only to the ambush, therefore delete per WP:BIO1E. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Terrorism, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is known for more than just one event – he was on a reality TV show and was a credited Hollywood consultant, and was the subject of a dedicated LA Times obituary [1]. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as above. I don't see notability outside of the event. 20 years later and there is no sourcing to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No sourcing?" The LA Times source has been added to the article, and there is notability outside of this one event. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how he's more notable than any one else killed in the attack. There were too many deaths in the war, most aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BIO1E, a few sentences/short para there is all that's warranted. Mztourist (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fuzheado. The journalist/editorial staff written obituary in the Los Angeles Times makes it clear the subject was known for his appearances on television, and as a personal trainer to celebrities in addition to the 2004 Fallujah ambush. WP:BIO1E therefore does not apply as the subject was known for more than one thing. This is further supported by coverage of him in a scholarly book on the History of Reality TV] published by Random House. There is coverage in google books of his work on television and his career as a soldier. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not enough SIGCOV, agree totally on WP:BIO1E and redirect. Last time I looked, personal trainer to the stars didn't shoe you in past WP:GNG. As an interesting footnote, Helvenston v. Blackwater Security. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

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

This seems to be an overly specific and redundant article given the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) which already exists and provides key context needed to cover this topic. Very limited coverage on this singular issue as a standalone topic exists with such coverage normally being mentioned in passing as part of the greater crisis. Originalcola (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as WP:G5; only significant contributions are from two sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Medicine, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with flying colours. If anything, it should be expanded using the many RS that cover the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d strongly argue that this is not the case. Outside of regular news reporting on the crisis where passing mention is given to preterm births there isn’t any coverage of this topic as a standalone, much less significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Originalcola (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes GNG, beyond that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) sits at 89 kB and 14,335 words of readable prose, making it WP:TOOBIG to absorb all this material and this an appropriate WP:SPINOFF for size reasons. And no, this does not qualify for G5, as I myself have a non-trivial edit there. Last I checked I am not a sock of a banned user. nableezy - 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the only edit you have is reverting a sock? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is still a substantive edit. nableezy - 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misinterpreting the intent of the rule there, although there are other non-sock editors who have made substantive non-revert posts. Originalcola (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merger would probably only add 100-200 words to whatever article it’s merged with. It might make more sense to merge it with Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip if size is still too great a concern. Originalcola (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure that unless you gut the entirety of what is merged? nableezy - 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a guesstimate but when merging you'd probably not transfer the lead and background. Both articles have a section or a decent amount of information on Gaza preterm births already, so you wouldn't have to copy all 797 words on this page over. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t really care if the article is deleted or merged, but I removed several sources that were either live updates from news liveblogs or Tweets. So I think the article needs cleaning up. Also I think it is written in news reporting style: on November 12, X happened, then on November 13, Y happened, etc…. I don’t think Wikipedia is supposed to have so many articles written like this unless I am misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS. More experienced editors may be able to help improve the article and sourcing. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a raft of relevant coverage from aid agencies, rights groups and all the major newsorgs (just search premature babies Gaza to see) so GNG is easily met, passing mention is simply untrue. The article does need improvement but that's not a reason to delete, I already restored one item adding a secondary to deal with a "newsblog" complaint (these sources are already used in other related articles, btw). G5 was already tried twice and successfully challenged leading to this AfD so "per WP:G5" is not a reason to delete either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to another experienced editor on here, “No pages should really be using live blogs long-term as sources. This is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as much as anything else. Because yes, live blogs are just a stream of off-the-cuff news and unredacted commentary.” Per WP:NEWSBLOG, they should be used with caution. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's "unredacted commentary"? Anyway, I added a secondary to the restored material so not a problem. Just some work to locate secondaries, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to be honest. Everything that CarmenEsparzaAmoux touched leaves a sour taste in my mouth. When we're crying out for neutrality and independence in this contentious area, the consequences of their actions are so destructive and this isn't about sides. It would be similarly damaging if they were making pro Israel edits. Sticking to the facts about this article - I have to agree with the citing of WP:G5 MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, G5 alone is a good reason to delete, as is WP:SOAP. I’m entirely sympathetic to the issues - I created Palestinian law - but we are also primarily a news organization. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've already restored most of the deleted content, it wasn't hard to find proper sources to back it up, and I've also added more information. The topic is notable. I don't fully agree with WP:G5 - being a sockpuppet doesn't necessarily means all your edits are trash. We should keep what is salvageable, and in this case, I don't see any significant issues with the existing article, which can certainly be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to you for doing that, but there's still a complete lack of secondary sources on this page, with non-routine news coverage on the topic of this article not existing. I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule. Originalcola (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine news coverage is about announcements and scheduled events. All of the sources in the article are secondary and all of them are non-routine. nableezy - 01:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to ignore the completely reasonable "I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule". My view is that the G5 condition "...and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" is a mistake. It's a self-defeating strategy that rewards and incentivizes ban evasion by over-estimating the importance of preserving content and under-estimating the importance of having effective ban evasion countermeasures. I think articles created by people employing deception in contentious topic areas where socks are common should be deleted even if there are hundreds of 'substantial edits' by other editors, even if there are tens of thousands of daily pageviews, and even if the article has attained featured article status. If the subject matters, other people, not employing deception, will have the same idea at some point and create it again. There's no deadline for content or need to take a short-term view. Anyway, having got that futile rant out of the way, I don't know what "substantial edits by others" actually means in terms of quantities, but here are the quantities in the form of token counts for the content of the current version of the page.
CarmenEsparzaAmoux 67.3%, Ïvana 15.3%, MWQs 8.9%, Wafflefrites 4.2%, with Nableezy, Pincrete, טבעת-זרם each having less than 1%.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin note, G5 had been brought up and the tag has also been declined twice. Rather than continuing to litigate that procedural element, please focus on whether the subject is notable and/or if it should be merged. The decision will be made on community consensus and not speedy grounds. Star Mississippi 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies where this is already covered at the appropriate level of detail. We are an encyclopedia, not a news organization, which means that it is inappropriate to cover a current event at this minute level of detail. Being created by a blocked sock does not help. Sandstein 19:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -After looking at the arguments, I still think that deletion is the best approach. There's no significant coverage on pre-term births that could meet the standards of notability as per WP:GNG. At present, all the sources on the page are primary sources (predominantly news reports) and there does not exist secondary sources focused mainly on the topic of this article. Even if such coverage did exist, which is doubtful, no editor has made a convincing reason as to why the content of this article would not be better served as part of another larger article as per the reasons I stated when initially proposing this page for deletion. Originalcola (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double vote Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Whatever is relevant to the topic can be cited in existing articles on the conflict. It seems totally problematic in WP:BIAS and full of WP:OVERKILL, not to mention being a specific theme just to a small niche. Svartner (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 10:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Proposed deletions

Deletion Review