Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)

Please see this subpage to voice your opinion on making this part of the Notability guideline

Please visit Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions to do exactly that, voice your opinion via endorsement, or suggestions for improvement, for this subsection of the notability guidelines.

---

Proposed naming change

I don't believe that the naming of articles about criminal acts needs to be any different from the guidelines for articles in general. A key guideline for the naming of articles is that they be the most commonly used name. I think it is very unlikely that a user is more likely to type in "Murder of John Smith" than a simple "John Smith". For this reason, I think we should just use the name of the victim, unless the article is written in such a way that it would make more sense to name it with the longer "Murder of John Smith". A good reason to use the longer title is because it is a subarticle, like Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. That said, there is no reason to write a full biography about a person who is only notable because they were a victim of a crime. So the naming of the article and the content of the article are separate issues. The content is related to notability, but the naming of the article is not. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the motivation for the naming convention here was that it was a means by which the associated AfDs were diffused. The problem with the name of the victim being the title is that it suggests that the article is a biography, which it shouldn't be. When, at the AfDs that inspired this guideline, it was suggested that the form "Murder of..." be used, the opposition died away somwhat because it satisfied the ONEEVENT concerns. What I could concede needs changing is the restriction on articles where the victim is discussed at length beyond the initial flurries of reports in the media - Natalie Holloway would be a good example (although presently unaffected by this guideline) Fritzpoll (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to tweak the wording of this guideline to more accurately present the current naming practice of these articles. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Executed Criminals in the United States

I have been in the slow process of writing an article for everyone executed in Louisiana since the reinstatement of capital punishment. About once a year I have one of the articles nominated for AfD or challenged in discussion. See Dobie Gillis Williams, Talk:Thomas_Lee_Ward, and Dalton Prejean. Currently I am involved is an AfD on John A. Brown, Jr. that has gone way beyond anything intended in WP:CIVIL. (And in the process trying to read and learn policies created in the last few years on WP without me noticing.) I have forwarded the position since 2005 when originally challenged on Dobie Gillis Williams that everyone executed individual in the United States since reinstatement is noteworthy for inclusion in WP. It is only 2.5% of convicted murderers that are sentenced to death and only a fraction of those sentenced to death actually get executed. Every executed convict since Furman has received significant coverage in the news media. This includes the crime, the trial, and ultimately the execution. There are also usually numerous articles that over the span of years as the the convcit's appeal and pardon applications are exhausted. These cases also have numerous independent reliable sources of information for a WP article due to the intense media coverage and also from the large of amount of public domain information contained in the opinion of the appellate courts. As I recently said in the current AfD ""Ordinary" murderers are not executed. It is only the extraordinary ones that are executed." This appears to the apporiate page to attempt to form a consensus on this issue. Reading WP:N/CA does not provide any guidance on post-reinstatement executed murderers in the United States. To be clear, there has been a total of 1,173 executions since 1976. Is a judicial execution since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the Untied States a notable enough event for the executed to receive a WP article? Does being executed post-Fumanmake you inherently notable? Please note: I have read the article title part of WP:N/CAand would to address that issue later. Nolamgm (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you posted this here. I had stopped by earlier to draft an Rfc with the question: "Are individuals who are judicially executed inherently notable?" I stopped when I came across the Wikipedia:Inherent notability essay. I'll re-post it below. Location (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That AFD is not uncivil. What I have noticed is that there is always at least one person that says that a debate is uncivil just because it is long. Joe Chill (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe, this really will be the last time I will respond to one your retorts. Just a little advice from someone who debates for a living. Using comments like "always" is uncivil and it will usually not help your argument. Little exclamations like "Hilarious!" equally hurt your cause and are uncivil. Rhetorical questions like "How did you make that mistake?" and "How did you miss that?" are uncivil and are destroy any creditable points you make. Statements like "You obviously don't understand Wikipedia notability that well." are uncivil. By comparison, Location and I have disagreed on the same issues over the last two days in a civilized way. We are discussing the issues and will probably reach a consensus on it. This does not mean that either my position or his will win in the end. But, that is what WP is about. Please stop trying to win. Offer logical and reasoned comments. You seem like a bright young person. You can do better then the comments mentioned Nolamgm (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What I said was logical. You just say that it isn't becase you disagree (that was an uncivil comment). I don't see why you told me to make my reason for deleting WP:JNN. That comment didn't seem civil. That whole stop trying to win comment makes no sense when that is what every editor does in AFD in order to keep or save an article (By the way, that comment is uncivil). The reason why I said a few of those comments is because I don't see how someone could completely twist someone's comments around in a way that wasn't even said. I guess I'm uncivil when I say comments like that and uncivil when I don't say anything that sounds bad at all. It seems likeWP:CIVIL doesn't matter as much as people think or as I use to think. For instance, I consider a few of your comments uncivil and you don't think so. Another example is when someone called me a troll and when someone said that I was attracted to feces and everyone said that the comments weren't uncivil. Joe Chill (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Are individuals who are judicially executed inherently notable?

The answers to this question will help shape a consensus view that could modify the perpetrator section in Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) Are individuals who are judicially executed inherently notable? Location (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes

1. Yes Depends See my above comments. I will paraphrase here. I have forwarded this position since 2005 when originally challenged on Dobie Gillis Williams that everyone executed individual in the United States since reinstatement is noteworthy for inclusion in WP. To be clear, there has been a total of 1,173 executions since 1976. It is only 2.5% of convicted murderers that are sentenced to death and only a fraction of those sentenced to death actually get executed. Every executed convict since Furman has received significant coverage in the news media. This includes the crime, the trial, and ultimately the execution. There are also usually numerous articles that over the span of several years as the convcit's appeal and pardon applications are exhausted. These cases also all have numerous independent reliable secondary sources of information for a WP article due to the intense media coverage and also from the large of amount of public domain information contained in the opinion of the appellate courts during the exhaustive appellant process in both State and Federal courts of all convictions. As I recently said in the current AfD ""Ordinary" murderers are not executed. It is only the extraordinary ones that are executed."Nolamgm (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

   Amended Response In light of some of the comments made against the questioned posed, I am amending my answer. I believe that MBisanz and Chuck make excellent points. The question is too broad.I still feel that the WP:N/CA should be amended to include a standard that individuals executed in the United States post-Furman are notable. Similar to what we have at WP:ATH. As a class of people, they all generally have been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,and independent of the subject." As for any WP:BIAS issue, I have also forwarded the position that individuals under a whole life tariff in the United Kingdom should also fit this standard. Nolamgm (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Usually. In the United States, there will generally be a large amount of coverage for the crime, trial/sentencing, appeals, and execution. ONEEVENT doesn't apply in such cases, as it will typically be ongoing, periodic coverage over a span of years and the GNG will be satisfied relatively easily. In some other parts of the world "judicially executed" may be a mostly irrelevant concept. 20:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Usually I would think it would help to have as complete a list as possible not only for people studying the death penalty but for those studying violence and the causes of it. If they were executed there must be a story behind it and in most cases there is informationa available about what led upto the crime. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No

1. They are not inherently notable for the simple reason that over the years millions of people have been executed in judicially sanctioned situations and unless there are reliable secondary sources addressing the persons, they should not be covered. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
2. I don't think we can even get a list of the names of everyone who has been judicially executed in the world this year, much less enough biographical information to write even a decent stub about them, much less so for people executed in the past. And if this notability guideline is to be limited to people executed in the United States since 1976, then that creates problems with U.S.-centrism and recentism. See WP:BIAS and WP:RECENT. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
3. No, per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary+WP:NOTMEMORIAL. And what Metropolitan90 said above.--Otterathome (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
4. No. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
5. No. MBisanz and Metropolitan90 demonstrate the main reasons. It is simply not a demonstrated fact that in past AFD discussions we have demonstrated that for anyone put to death as a result of judicial sentencing that there will almost inevitably be adequate sourcing to support a biographical article on the individual. In addition, while WP:BLP1E obviously does not apply after the execution, the logic that individuals notable for only one event should be covered in discussion of the event will still be sound, and will often apply. So even if there is sourcing, we may well be better off without an article. GRBerry 18:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
6. No, they are not inherently notable. These people need to satisfy normal notability guidelines. If they all those executed get significant news coverage, like is claimed, then there should be no problem meeting notability guidelines. But if an executed individual receives little or no coverage, then obviously they are not notable.Angryapathy (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
7. No. Per the linked article in the originally posed question, China executed over 5000 people in 2008. I do not think all of those 5000+ people are inherently, individually, notable. Most if not all executed criminals in the United States will meet the general notability guidelines, and if people want to create articles for each of the 37 people executed in the United States in 2008, I do not think would be difficult to show that each of those 37 people meet the general notability guidelines. Chuck (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Further comment As I see the current guideline, it's really just an explanation of how the general notability guideline applies to criminal acts; it doesn't override or create any exceptions to the GNG. Creating an "inherently notable" class for executed criminals would be an exception to the GNG and as such would actually be a fairly significant change to the scope of this guideline. Chuck (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

8. No. I certainly don't think we need a guideline that says they are notable regardless of the GNG - if anything I think this is one of several areas where the GNG alone would be too inclusive and needs a more detailed supplement. More detailed comment on this below. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. Location (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment. Given that this is not an Afd, I think discussing other stuff should be perfectly acceptable. Although not typically described as such, certain subjects seem to get a pass on "inherent notability". Professional football and baseball players are two examples. I am interested in seeing other editors views on this. Location (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You are absolutely right. Remember WP:OTHERSTUFF does not say you can never use an example from another article as an example is an arguement. It says that you should not simply say that they is an article about x so this one is fine. Your example is good one to consider in this debate. It is currently policy as per WP:ATHLETE that "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport..."are inherently notable. Nolamgm (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, we can explore analogies. But Nolamgm misunderstands WP:ATHLETE and the other equivalent notability guidelines. They are guidelines rather than policy in the strict sense. These guidelines reflect, to the extent they are accurate, the actual results of large numbers of AFDs on these types of subject, and record rules of thumb that with high reliability predict the result of an AFD on a future similarl subject. They are effectively rules of thumb with high reliability for predicting when an editor that takes the time to research will be able to find multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage of a subject. They are not policies stating that certain subjects are notable whether or not those sources exist. If an editor did the requisite research and established that sources do not exist, it would still be appropriate to nominate the subject for AFD, demonstrating the nonexistence of sources in the nomination. GRBerry 17:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Although this thread quieted down some time ago, I wanted to interject the findings of a recent Afd to the history here that are relevant to the above comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder Collins. Thunder Collins played one professional football game in Canada and was recently sentenced for murder. I would venture to state that the number of independent reliable sources related to his murder far outweigh the number of independent reliable sources related to his professional football "career"; however, those recommending keep did so on the basis that playing one professional football game met WP:ATHLETE. In this instance, WP:ATHLETE might as well be policy because calling it a guideline implies that there are exceptions. With this in mind, there is no doubt to me that "inherent notability" applies to some subjects and not others. Location (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Admittedly, I am not an expert in WP policy. Two issues are giving me a lot of thought during this discussion. One issue that I am having trouble with is that in these discussions policies, guidelines, essays, and projects are cited as controlling and not controlling. The Afd that started this discussion was nominated for failing WP:BLP1E. Is WP:BLP1E a policy or a guideline? It is on the WP:BLP page that is a policy. WP:BIO1E, which I guess applies to the deceased, is on the WP:BIO page which is a guideline. I guess it makes some sense: WP has a strong policy about when a biography can be written about a living person and only a guideline about the deceased. Is this correct? The second issue is WP:BIO1E itself. It appears to be more about what to name an article then if the information in the article should be included. With my background and POV, I would much rather not name articles about murderers executed after the murderer but I really do not know what else to call it. Further, it is not so much as the crime itself that is the notable event but what happens to the murderer after the event that causes the notability. This brings up a sub-issue. Is there any consensus on what "one event" is? John A. Brown, Jr., the before mentioned article that led to this RfC, is broken up into four separate events: crime, arrest, trial, and execution. Of the four, I think only the trial, which resulted in a death sentence, and the execution of said sentence are actually notable. Are the two events so intertwined that they are considered "one event?" Nolamgm (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It seems that the focus of this has turned to creating an inherent class of notability for those executed in the U.S. since 1976. Not only is it U.S.-Centric, but it seems to violate NPOV by making the executed seem more important on Wikipedia. I am not accusing anyone of POV-pushing, but if WP states those executed since Furman are inherently notable, then the policy of WP is making a statement about the death penalty. By leaving out pre-Furman executions, this proposal would create a WP policy that highlights the importance of Furman, which would violate NPOV. I see no reason why WP should make a statement about the death penalty by creating an inherent class of notability of those executed in a certain country during a particular time frame. Our guidelines and policies on Notability are sufficent regarding the issue. Angryapathy (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why it couldn't be applied to those outside the USA. There have been several times where I have seen criticism of being USA centric. This may be partially legitimate but it seems to me that those concerned can provide information from outside the USA. Also ignoring the death penalty is a different kind of bias. I'm not sure Furman is the right landmark but more recent events are more notable if for no other reason than they are current events and there is more information that is available to report. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No one here is suggesting "ignoring the death penalty." Some people believe the GNG should be applied to executed crminals; others suggest executed criminals need not fulfill the GNG to have an article about them. Either way, no one on either side is "ignoring the death penalty." Chuck (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The death penalty should not be ignored, nor should its relevence be elevated by WP policy. Instead, no statement should be made on the death penalty, and let WP:GNG be followed in order to determine notability. Angryapathy (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the point I was trying to make is that if they thought the crime was serious enough for the death penalty it should be notable. If they are executing people for crimes that aren't notable there is something wrong. This is true whether you are in favor or against the death penalty. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• My position in support of notability in post-Furman is an attempt to create a guideline that meets WP:GNG. GNG requires a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order to be included. We have created several sub-guidelines on specific topics to help us apply GNG. As I mentioned above our WP:ATHLETE guideline provides that "people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport..." are generally notable. This is not WP pushing a POV about sports. This is simply the acceptance by the community that someone who played sports at a certain level will generally have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and thus meet WP:GNG. I believe that the same guideline can be implemented for at least post-Furmanexecuted individuals. I believe a guideline is necessary because I have witnessed WP:N/CA and WP:BIO1E used incorrectly in AFD discussions as authority as to why post-Furman individuals cannot have articles about them in WP. Finally, I selected the "cutoff" of post-Furman cases because of GNG. Cases post-Furman will generally have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This guideline could probably be safely extended until post-WWII capital cases in the United States and Western Europe. I also believe that individuals currently under a whole life tariff in the United Kingdom would also met GNG as a class. I am sorry but I am not that familiar with other countries. Maybe some editors more familiar with the criminal justice system of other countries can comment on any class of convicted persons who met GNG because of the nature of the conviction and sentence. Nolamgm (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE does not refer to something that can become a hotly contested subject; WP saying professional athletes are notable makes no political statements. However, WP saying that executed criminals are inherently notable could be a political statement. I don't see how this is a problem; if there is substantial coverage on a person who was executed, we should have no problem creating an article about him/her. If there is very little coverage, why should we have an article? Angryapathy (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand how it would make a statement for either for or against the death penalty. Can you please explain what political statement it would be making? Nolamgm (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The death penalty itself is a hot-button issue. By saying that those executed are inherently notable, WP is stating that their deaths were important because the State executed them. Why the death penalty? You've said that we should list everyone receiving life imprisonment in England, so why don't we do that for America? Everyone who is convicted of life without parole is included? How about include an article about everyone is who is on death row? Or those who were on death row? By saying that those executed are inherently notable, you are making a statement that the application of the death penalty is most important action of the judicial system. And that is bias. That is OK for you to think, but having WP make that statement belies NPOV. Instead of making any statements, we can let WP:GNG make the decisons for us. Angryapathy (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I fear any society that does not view its highest possible punishment as the most important action of its criminal justice system. This not so much my personal POV but it is the POV of the criminal justice system in the United States. Individuals subject to capital punishment receive extensive review of their cases by both the court system and the media. The same is not true for everyone who receives a life without parole sentence. For example under Louisiana law most appellate review of a conviction stops two years after a defendant is sentenced. The same is not true of capital defendants. In every state, a capital case goes through the state system twice and the federal system once. Along with the corresponding media coverage, this creates "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A notability guideline does not make a statement about what is important. It simply instructs on how to apply to WP:GNG. I have repeatably used WP:ATHLETE as an example. In providing that "people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport..." are generally notable, WP:ATHLETE does not make a statement that a MLB player is more important than a minor league player. It simply recognizes the fact that someone who has played MLB will genuinely have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" while someone who only played in the minors will not. In regards to your question regarding extension of the proposed guideline to other individuals presently and formerly on death row, I submit the later are probably already included in WP as a group while the former might have problems with the extremely problematic WP:ONEEVENT guideline and the current equally problematic WP:BLP1E policy. I don't know how a crime and bifurcated trial can be considered a "single event" but I do not beleive there is consensus yet on this issue. In closing, I apologize for using the term "inherently notable" in this RfC and my thread above. I was somewhat unfamiliar with WP policies at guidelines at the time this discussion started. I see now I should have requested to make a guideline amendment and avoided the term "inherently notable." Nolamgm (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the supplementary notability guidelines work both ways. Yes, if someone meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:CREATIVE you can be confident they are notable, and need not spend much effort searching out references to prove it; but in some cases these extra guidelines are there to set a higher bar than the GNG, because that would be too permissive. For instance, any TV presenter, singer or election candidate can show a lot of press cuttings because of the nature of the job, so WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:POLITICIAN set a higher standard for people claiming notability on those grounds. If the GNG could trump them, those supplementary guidelines would be pointless.

WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:Existence ≠ Notability are essays on the same theme - that there is more to encyclopedic notability than just the existence of multiple reliable sources.

There are over 15,000 murders a year in the US alone, most of which attract media coverage; we clearly don't need articles on every one, and WP:N/CA is an attempt to help decide suitable criteria, more demanding than the GNG.

When we come to executions, I think the same applies, though it is more arguable. There have been >1,000 in the US since 1976. The subject is certainly important enough for extended coverage, with articles covering numbers of executions, maybe by state, developments in the pro- and anti- capital punishment debate; but I do not myself think encyclopedic coverage requires an article like Tyrone Delano Gilliam, Jr. for each and every one, complete with details of the crime, appeals, condemned man's last words etc. JohnCD (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Criminals and WP:BLP1E

Why is there a lot of editors that say that a criminal is notable because of the crime, trial, whatever else it took to get a result, and the result (or two of those) gets a criminal out of BLP1E? Even though they seem to not realize it, they are saying that every criminal should get an article. With every criminal, there is more than the crime, but that it in no way gets it out of one event. Both the issue that Location brought up above and this issue was brought up in an AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. You've erected a straw man to attack. Of course every criminal is not notable, but the GNG and ONEEVENT doesn't mean that a criminal has to have someone's thesis written about his life or a major motion picture made about his exploits before he meets the notability guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a couple of examples might help (or confuse the issue) Bernard Madoff esstially led a pretty quiet life. Yes there were articles on his business going back 20 years, but they were hardly "events" - he didn't have an article until Dec. 11, 2008 when he confessed to a $50 Billion Ponzi Scheme (I know because I started the article). Should he not have an article because of 1E? BTW the article was one of the top 100 articles viewed for a couple of months.

Another article I started Danny Pang (financier) could be looked at as a 1E. He only stole $100 million, and then just yesterday committed apparent suicide. 1E? Well the Wall Street Journal had a series of articles on him (some on the front page), which will probably win a Pulitzer Prize. But I think he is obviously notable despite the apparent 1E, if only for the bizarre aspects of the case. OK, make it 1.5E - his stripper wife was murdered by a hitman (DP's lawyer was arrested for it but got off). DP was clearly out of town at the time of the murder and not tried, but pleads the 5th at the trial.

Madoff example: it clearly belongs in Wikipedia even though it's close to 1E

Pang example: I think it belongs in Wikipedia, even if it is considered 1E, but... Smallbones (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

JC, don't put words in my mouth. Joe Chill (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Deal with the substance of the objection, then. As far as words in anyone's mouth, "they are saying that..." is part of your opening post. Choose more precise words, rather than generalizations, (every? Really? Who on earth said that?) to maximize the focus on the real issues. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"but the GNG and ONEEVENT doesn't mean that a criminal has to have someone's thesis written about his life or a major motion picture made about his exploits before he meets the notability guidelines" I never said that. That's what I mean by don't put words in my mouth. Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we get better examples?

One of the possible criteria in this guideline that would support creating an article about a perpetrator is: 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 the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role (for example, John Hinckley, Jr.). Is Hinckley really a useful example for this criterion? He would already have been covered by the previously listed criterion, The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities. I would think that a better example for this criterion would be someone like Jeffrey Dahmer, who became notorious for the kinds of crimes he committed and how he committed them, but whose victims' names were not widely noted by the public.

Another section of the guideline states: As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Thus, attempts at inclusion prompted by appearance in the press should not be excluded if notability can be otherwise asserted. The latter statement has a footnote that says: See, for example, Adrienne Shelly. However, Shelly was the subject of a Wikipedia article for months before she was murdered. Granted, it was only of stub quality before her death, but I don't see any evidence that anyone tried to delete the article or challenged her notability after her death. So I don't understand what this example is used for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Metropolitan90's idea of using Jeffrey Dahmer as example in point 3 of the Perp section and John Hinckley, Jr. as example in point 2 of the Perp section. Any objections? Location (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Those seem fine to me, but both are US-centric. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • There isn't any reason why multiple examples couldn't be used. How about also using Beverley Allitt in Perp #3? Not sure of any non-American examples for #2. Location (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I think the use of multiple examples selected from different countries would be appropriate. For #2 (perpetrators whose victims were famous), here are a few possibilities: Mehmet Ali Ağca, Gavrilo Princip, Yigal Amir, and André Dallaire. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Given that there was no objection, I went ahead and made the changes. Location (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I added Adrienne Shelly (and wrote the stub and most of the text of current article on her) and I think she's a perfect example. "...Shelly was the subject of a Wikipedia article for months before she was murdered"—exactly. The criterion language refers to someone who could have been the subject of an article even without having been a victim. The criterion you flag highlights that if the subject couldn't have sustained an autonomous article prior to being a victim, they're probably not a good subject of an article simply because they are a victim. Shelly is a person who properly was the subject of an article before her horrible murder. She's thus the poster child for a person who should be kept under the criterion. I think maybe you're looking for the opposite example, a person who fails the criterion by being a victim but who isn't independently notable apart form their victim status. That would also be instructive, but is much harder to find a good example of to cite because your would have to cite a red link and it's rather distasteful in context, e.g., "X", who was murdered, shouldn't have an article because..." Think about that person's family reading that example. Ugg.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked her description in light of this thread. See diff. To this could be added the opposite example, i.e., of someone who fails the criterion, but I'd be careful with human dignity here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• In regard to the use of Adrienne Shelly in the victims section, I now understand what Fuhghettaboutit was trying to do. However, I believe that a better example would be someone who (1) would have been notable enough for an article based on their activities before becoming a crime victim; (2) became the victim of a crime; (3) had their article nominated for deletion, preferably on a claim that the person was non-notable; and (4) had their article kept on the grounds that the person was in fact notable because of their pre-victimization activity. Adrienne Shelly meets criteria 1 and 2, and I guess 4 because her article has in fact been kept, but not 3 because her article was never nominated for deletion. In other words, I'm looking for a victim whose notability was challenged but eventually upheld. I can't think of one myself, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• I like the addition of Phil Spector under #1. Would it be acceptable to add Roscoe Arbuckle, too? Non-US examples? Location (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't support adding Roscoe Arbuckle to this section, since he was eventually acquitted of the charges against him. I can't think of non-US examples myself, but I don't object to their inclusion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to perp section

The first point of the perp section currently states: "They are notable for something beyond the crime itself. Perpetrators of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Perpetrator notability is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question." Is there any objection to moving the second and third sentences to the introduction of the perp section right before "Editors should consider..." since those statements apply to all three points, not just the first one? It would also be more consistent with the beginning of the victim section. Location (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that there was no objection, I made the move. I also made a few other minor changes in wording to make the victims and perpetrators sections more consistent with each other. Location (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability of acts involving Political Violence (Revisted)

Recently an interesting AFD debate occured which resulted in no consensus; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2010 Khyber bombing. During discussion, issues pertaining to whether Notability (criminal acts) encompasses events related to Political Violence occured. The term Political violence I am using refers to acts of terrorism, freedom fighting, extremism, war crimes, crimes against humanity and so on as expressed in a previous thread(s). Paticular to this afd discussion; Events where mass death as a result of an individual or individual(s) occurred. What would be fruitfal maybe, would be a broader discussion pertaining to if these events fall under this branch of notability policy as a starting point, or if a seperate notabilty requirement should or could be established and what this may encompass for these events to satisfy notability. Any feedback on this issue would be greatly appreciated for a starting point. Thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

what I think we hope to see is something specific as it relates to criminal acts that are called "Terrorist Attacks' in real world. WP has always covered these and mostly notability has been established using WP:GNG & also WP:N/CA No threshold exists as far as I am aware on minimum number of casualties and we have articles where casualties were very high like September 11 attacks as well as where casualties were lower e.g 2010 Pune bombing which was recently featured 'In the news' and Silda camp attack which is currently featured. most victims usually are ordinary citizens not necessarily intrinsically notable. media coverage can also be somewhat uneven depending on geographic location and its accessibility to media. is there a threshold number of casualties that would make an incident automatically notable . is it 10, 100 , 1000 or 10,000 ???Wikireader41 (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:VICTIMS

Per outcomes of AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deanna Cremin, clearly not a guideline that's working. :-/ Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)?

Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) is currently a notability guideline that touches upon the notability of 1) criminal acts [i.e. events] and 2) people who are either the victim or a perpetrator of a criminal act. As an option to help alleviate a bit of redundancy within the growing number of notability guidelines, I am wondering if there is any support or opposition to merging the first section of that guideline with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and the second part to an appropriate subsection within Wikipedia:Notability (people). Location (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• In order to centralize the discussion, I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Please comment there. Location (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)