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:

1. 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.
2. 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

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

See also: Social science-related deletions.

United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Gaza war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Essentially a WP:POVFORK of United States support for Israel in the Gaza war. The media coverage and military support sections are duplicative of their parent articles. The "context" section is duplicative of Gaza genocide. Meanwhile, the "reactions" section is a disparate grouping of opinions which are better covered in United States support for Israel in the Gaza war#Backlash to US support. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Politics, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FORK, nothing that can't be covered in United States support for Israel in the Gaza war. jolielover♥talk 04:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unnecessary fork. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: For reasons mentioned above. Also, the wording "complicity in Israeli war crimes" is POV. "United States support for Israel in the Gaza war" is neutral as far as the title wording. — Maile (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:POVFORK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. A clear CFORK, also note that the article is written in the tone of fanpov. – Garuda ^Talk! 07:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant WP:POVFORK, the best option here is either merge it or redirect it to United States support for Israel in the Gaza war. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Ceasefire (guns-for-tickets program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Looking up the topic shows nothing, no evidence of lasting significance PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, and Colorado. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL buyback program with zero notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karen White case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are a grand-total four sources about this individual all pertaining to this one incident. WP:BLP1E applies. Sohom (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There are notable instances of prisoners with similar circumstances, but this case is not one of the notable ones. BD2412 T 00:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This case is notable as it directly led to the government reviewing guidance on how transgender prisoners should be accommodated within the prison estate and, thereafter, the opening of transgender wings within prisons 2A00:23C8:3D81:7801:852:F46:1EE9:B4CA (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 01:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. If there was no real WP:SIGCOV after 2018, I would agree w/ nom - but there was follow-up in 2023[1] as well as several opinion columns, like this one[2]. The case has been discussed in scholarship of varying calibers[3][4][5][6][7] and is mentioned in a law textbook (pg. 774) [8]. Prison policy in the UK for trans prisoners was also seemingly changed in response to the case[9], which I think could suggest WP:IMPACT. Zzz plant (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct. This case is quoted whenever discussion around self-id and single sex spaces for women are discussed. This can be an important article once it is fleshed out by more experienced editors than me2A00:23C8:3D81:7801:852:F46:1EE9:B4CA (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify This article is still under construction. There is not enough information here yet to show or determine notability. As an article just over one hour old, it could have been moved to draft space without being brought here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Just discovered that there is an article on this topic in the Spanish section of Wikipedia. 2A00:23C8:3D81:7801:852:F46:1EE9:B4CA (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zzz plant. The article badly needs expansion but the topic is inherently notable. Examining the WP:NEVENT criteria:
  • WP:LASTING: According to the BBC, the case influenced the UK to change its policy regarding transgender prisoners. [10]
  • WP:GEOSCOPE: The case received coverage from national media, including the Guardian [11], BBC [12], Times [13], Independent [14], Telegraph [15], and Sky News [16].
  • WP:DEPTH: In addition to straightforward reporting on the case, the Guardian published two in-depth articles about why the case happened [17] and its effects on the UK's transgender inmate policy [18].
  • WP:PERSISTENCE: As outlined by Zzz plant, the case has been taken up by multiple academic sources since White's 2018 conviction. The case has also received media coverage since then, e.g. [19] [20]
  • WP:DIVERSE: See WP:GEOSCOPE above.

Astaire (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. New article with no real content. I agree it is notable though. But there is nothing here and for a crime involving BLPs it is an issue in its current state. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Hopefully the article is much improved now. Slàinte mhath a chàirdean (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is very much a WP:BLP1E case and the focus of this article is on their prison issues and activity rather than anything that affected the general public outside mentioning how they got to prison, and the categorization of Category:LGBTQ history in the United Kingdom is alarmingly WP:POINTy. Nathannah • 📮 00:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it's not a BLP1E since the article is about the case, not the person, and the article now has a section titled "Aftermath and impact". The issue with the category also isn't a deletion rationale. Astaire (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article... is on the event. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Astaire (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Jorjandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Inadequate sources for a BLP, particularly one which makes negative claims about the subject (e.g. that they were arrested and imprisoned). Omphalographer (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Internet, and Iran. Omphalographer (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Thiruvananthapuram mass murder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to be a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Unlikely to have a WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Kerala. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Crime Spworld2 (Talk?) 09:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per the nomination. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. Akshaypatill (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. I concur with the WP:LASTING rationale. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For an event to be notable WP:EVENT, it must receive significant or in-depth coverage WP:INDEPTH. It has a clear cover. 5 people were fatally stabbed to death News source(s)

This is not an everyday occurrence, many editors argue that it is part of the daily routine when it comes to events happening in India, and the opinion is incorrect. A man fatally stabbing 5 people is an extraordinary event, and it has received a very remarkable response.

Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of breaking news, are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. Spworld2 (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It doesn't seem to have the makings of a LASTING impact. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : We had maintained the page for the 2001 Aluva massacre, and yes, the coverage is the same for this too. WP:LASTING impact of this is going on, in the context of this incident, the Kerala Police and the Kerala High Court are going to bring a law to seize drugs. After this, the Kerala Police conducted a lot of checks, found the drug mafia [21] [22]and produced them in court[23],

Spworld2 (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a hosting space for news articles. Notability needs to be demonstrated by significant coverage in secondary sources beyond news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Kerala Police investigated the case and proved that 5 people were killed in a brutal manner, and the accused was produced in court[24] [25] [26][27]. There are sources for this. Isn't it noteworthy that there is a brutal massacre that killed more people, a news source, and police court evidence? WP:EVENT WP:NCRIME Spworld2 (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Bielefeld mass shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article, no evidence of WP:LASTING coverage. E_F⁵ 14:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are plenty of news sources out there, but almost all are extremely short or are just replicating the AP news release from yesterday. By the time this AfD discussion has run its course, it will be clearer whether this event has lasting coverage. I can't make any predictions on that. Reconrabbit 16:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep per WP:RUSHDELETE, unable to determine if this will be notable until it has run its course in the news. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Currently there is plenty of international coverage with sources supplied to prove that. If news stories continue to come out then the should be a keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above, but the article could use a lot more information than currently as is. Madeleine (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promises that it may be notable some day are not a valid reason to create or keep an article. This is especially the case when it's about routine news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify and move protect until it's sufficiently improved unless that can be done during the course of the AfD. ALso, more time in draft space will allow determination of whether there's any continuing coverage. Star Mississippi 23:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It's just not encyclopedic. Unbelievable POV, specious claims, pushing an inherently subjective narrative. State terrorism seems like it's doing what this one article is trying to, from a factual standpoint. This just takes that and then adds the claims that any form of borders are unacceptable violence, the American state is forcibly sterilizing minority women to maintain a white ethnostate, etc. I just don't see the need for this on an encyclopedia, when all it really is is a list of links to interesting articles on real problems, with absolutely insane commentary added. Bruhpedia (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's in a terrible state and probably needs a complete rewrite, but refs [1..3] are solidly reliable sources, all explicitly discussing "state violence". That means it's a notable thing. It doesn't appear to be a synonym of state terrorism, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blow it up and start over there's a notable concept here, but the article needs massive amounts of work. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert to the stub it was here, which seems to avoid the problems that the current version has. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and rewrite. Technically, this is grounds for speedy keep as an invalid rationale (WP:SKCRIT) as it doesn't address any of the reasons for deletion. The reasons listed in the nomination are neutral point of view which the nominator sees as unencyclopedic, but this is not enough to fall under what Wikpedia is not, and is thus invalid. Per WP:ATD, problems that can be fixed with editing should be done instead of nominating for deletion. In terms of notability, it is very obviously a notable topic, no questions asked, and—per Chiswick Chap—is a seperate topic from State terrorism. I will begin working on rewriting the article as soon as I can, and a reviewing admin can decide if this is speedy keep or not. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 23:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was wrong, monopoly on violence, not state terrorism, is the article that covers a lot of the same issues this article does, but more evenhandedly.

  Regardless, it's obviously a notable term, but if it's a synonym or hyponym of monopoly on violence that doesn't mean we have to keep the article instead of merging it. My issue was that the article was 1,000 words of subjective critical theory that has no place here, and, once you excised that, all that's left is a stub definition of monopoly on violence (with a bit of state terrorism, insofar as there's anything at all.

  If the article can be rewritten to have encyclopedic value, that's great, and obviously preferable to deletion. I just think that deletion is preferable to leaving it as is, per Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY, and arguably Wikipedia:NOTOPINION and Wikipedia:Soapbox. A stub reversion could work too, if 95% of the work has been done by Weber, but there's some worth in noting that this term builds on state violence in whatever corner of postmodern theory. Bruhpedia (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, notability doesn't necessarily mean it's worth keeping, I'd say it falls under Wikipedia:Junk. Better to rewrite from scratch per Wikipedia:TNT, but better to delete than let be. Bruhpedia (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Law, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Monopoly on violence in lieu of TNT at this point. State violence, a sociological concept with its origins in Weber, and state terrorism are fundamentally distinct concepts. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is what I was thinking. It's not distinct from monopoly on violence, an article that uses "state violence" interchangeably at times. Bruhpedia (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jihobbyist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a neologism, and does not meet our standards for it. There is actually a lot of usage of the term, but it's always referring to it in the context of its creator, and should be merged to the creator of the term, Jarret Brachman. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of significant coverage. It's hilarious, and I'm a fan of portmanteaux myself (I invented mergetarian in 2008), but as the years have passed, we've become more strict with notability. Bearian (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will do the merge myself if the consensus is not to keep. There is coverage, it's just in the context of its creator. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the creator, per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]