Talk:Gilgo Beach serial killings

Update template

@Abitowlish I noticed your edit summary about the article needing to be updated to reflect the current suspect, but that is already covered in the last paragraph in the lead and in more detail at Gilgo Beach serial killings#Police investigations#Suspect. Is that sufficient or were you referring to something else? S0091 (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I was referring partially to that, I hadn't seen that last paragraph. I was also referring to two other murders that had been linked to the killer in a recent testimony. Abitowlish (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing names of some "possible victims" from article

A few of the "possible victims" named in the article seem to have been included because of actual links to the main case (as suspected by police). The names of others are listed whose cases have no publicly-known link to the main case. I suggest removing the names of "possible victims" whose cases have not publicly been tied to the main case by police. Atiru (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead 2604:2D80:D50A:A00:4B52:462E:AC72:1E29 (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Re-open RfC

@FormalDude Would you be willing to re-open your RFC please? It seems as though this is a supervote Wikipedia:SUPV as the discussion was closed short of a week, and the consensus seems to have been derived from quantity Wikipedia:SUPPORT rather than merit of the arguments.

 "For example, if the majority view at an AfD is based on a position that would clearly violate verifiability or BLP concerns, the majority is wrong." (SUPV)

The arguments in support of keeping the name take issue with the Wikipedia WP:BLPCRIME policy itself, rather than the fact that this article doesn't comply with it. This is not an appropriate foundation: Wikipedia:POINT, and it resulted in Wikipedia:PETTIFOG. The suspect is low-profile WP:LOWKEY, notable for only this event Wikipedia:BLP1E, and their notability may not be sustained depending on the outcome of the trial Wikipedia:NTEMP. The fact that it's extensively covered in the news is a notability fallacy WP:ITSINTHENEWS. The name itself adds no encyclopedic value that is not achieved by referring to them as a suspect or defendant, at least until they're convicted of the crime.

 Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. (BLP) CrystalXenith (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Per the Kohberger RfC, what I said there. These are the only edits you have ever made. We cannot reopen a settled RFC for no reason when there has been no new information presented, You have a serious misunderstanding of policy and almost all of what you linked has no relevance to this situation. Spamming wikilinks will not make the consensus go your way. I'm just going to copy paste what I said there, because it's the exact same:

If he is declared not guilty, he will still never be a private figure again. He is too inexorably tied to this case, and if by some miracle he is found not guilty the trial against him will likely become a famous case of the media assuming someone did it when they didn't. His name will not become less relevant, at that point he'll probably get covered for his own sake. Given the extent to which his name is reported in RS, it would make us look like fools - it's not like the majority of articles hide it and we only picked it out from one or two! They all name him!

In any case, his name is constantly brought up in every source, there is no getting this cat out of the bag. BLP1E is of no relevance because this is not a biography article on him. It will surely add encyclopedic value, as much as including anyone's name in any article adds encyclopedic value, because if he is somehow found not guilty he will still be a major part of this case anyway. This is also a BAD RFC, we did this before, we came to the consensus to include it before.

All the rules vis a vis BLPCRIME say is that we must seriously consider not including material that implies a BLP is guilty. It has been seriously considered, and we decided to, because of the circumstances of the case and how widely covered it is. Most of what you linked is about notability, and notability arguments have no bearing on this at all, because this is an argument about name inclusion, not notability. If you want to argue notability and request to delete the page, by all means go ahead. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Unidentified Female found in 2013

There was an unidentified female found in January 2013 in Lattingtown, NY. She is suspected to be a victim. This could be added to the “Possible Victims” section of the article

Link to more information: https://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1539ufny.html Taudbn72 (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)