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.

Zdravko Mićević (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)

The subject won the Australian light heavyweight boxing title, but this doesn't seem to be enough for notability per WP:NBOXING. If so, this would be a WP:BLP1E that should be redirected to David Hookes. Astaire (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Serbia, and Australia. Astaire (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject is an Australian junior welterweight amateur champion and won his debut fight. But he doesn't meet WP:NBOXING. Also Wikipedia discourages notability solely from involvement in a crime or legal case WP:BLPCRIME. RolandSimon (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Previous user already mentioned everything. Боки 💬 📝 21:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fingersmith (slang) (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)

DIctionary definition. The word itself is not notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are separate articles for midwife and pickpocketing. It violates the policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to have an article about two unrelated subjects that share the same uncommon term. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It is a shame that all because of Special:Diff/31614798 we are going to lose the original 2005 authorship by DESiegel and Mike Rosoft of Fingersmith (novel). But Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we could then restore the early history of the article and merge it into Fingersmith (novel). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zorro Ranch, New Mexico (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)

Notrhing notable about this chunk of real estate apart from the link to Epstein; WP:NOTINHERITED. I'd redirect to the dead criminal, but I don't think there's a mention. TheLongTone (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- WP:GNG requires that multiple reliable sources cover a topic in detail, and the sources on this article clearly show that this is true. Whether they should devote so much attention to such a topic is something that can be debated, but they clearly do, so it passes the Wikipedia notability criteria, which require it to be possible to write a well-cited article on it -- as has been done. Additionally, I'm pretty some of the articles discuss why he chose New Mexico. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The attention is all down to the Epstein connection. As above, see WP:NOTINHERITED. TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what NOTINHERITED means. It doesn't mean anything notable for being connected with something else can't be notable, it means they don't get that without their own coverage. For comparison, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• leaning delete It is telling that every single reference is a news report with Epstein's name in the title. I'm hard pressed to think that people have an interest in the place for its own sake, and in case we get into arguments about not saying the magic words, notability is not inherited. Mangoe (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vitória school attack (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:not (old) news. Seems like a relitivly trivial incident. TheLongTone (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- Wikipedia notability is based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, which this topic has, as shown by sources cited in the article. Whether the incident is trivial is completely irrelevant. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although there are multiple sources, they are all more or less concurrent to the event. WP:NOT is a pillar policy, and this is a clear fail of WP:NOTNEWS 4.37.252.50 (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources linked in the article span all the way until May 2023, 9 months after the attack, closely monitoring his trial until it was eventually sealed by the court. This indicates that his attack was still notable nearly a year later, especially given how he was in direct contact with the perpetrator of the Barreiras school shooting. CornyDude22 (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Schools. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Container Bob (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)

Looks like a WP:BLP1E fail to me; this was a fairly short news story in 2001, which is made mildly more interesting by some post-9/11 hysteria but still doesn't get any lasting or other notability. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Egypt, Italy, and Canada. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. WP:BLP1E C1-2 are clearly met, but I'm concerned about C3 as it seems like his role in the incident was substantial and well-documented. There was some additional coverage in 2002[1][2] and 2006[3]. He's also mentioned in some government reports (both US and Canada) and scholarly articles[4] about maritime / shipping container security, and in an article (not in-depth coverage of him) in 2014.[5] Zzz plant (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all the sourcing says container boy. This seems to be maybe notable (maybe convert into an event article?) is there a reason we're calling this Bob or is this a 13 year uncorrected typo? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh! Maybe that's what made source searching difficult, but I'm still not convinced by the sources above to meet the even higher NEVENT bar. The first three are opinion columns, government reports usually don't confer notability, a mention might but i don't see any new facts, and shallow coverage doesn't confer notability. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like, if this is "substantial and well-documented" coverage, most flash-in-the-pan news stories would pass BLP1E. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I did not vote as I didn't check myself for notability. Just saying "maybe". Just noting the typo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False document (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)

Confused and confusing. Unclear whether it is referring to fiction or reality. The only reference is to a Scottish Gothic academic paper. The examples are all well covered elsewhere, and the general themes are covered in the propaganda, forgery and hoax articles, and epistolary novel for fiction. There’s a long history of debate and confusion on the talk page. It went to AfD in 2012, and doesn’t appear to be any better now. See also false documentation. Blackballnz (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Crime. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The entire scope is a WP:SYNTH mess reflecting some editor's opinion that hoaxes, forgeries, epistolary novels, counterfeit currency, and tie-in merchandising material are somehow part of a single coherent overarching topic. TompaDompa (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR, per TompaDompa. There are already better articles about hoaxes and forgeries. This is an under sourced fork. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a confusing article with little in the way of notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and disambiguate. The topic may be notable, but the execution is mostly unreferenced WP:OR. The sole existing ref is useful and I'll add it to Pseudepigrapha, which I think is the relevant topic. But no redirect is needed as the name is very generic (maybe a disambig, however?). PS. I think found manuscript, a term that redirects here, and that was used in the cited source (the single ref the current article has), may be a more relevant concept. I may stub it instead. PPS. I am working on that new article, but as I said above, I don't think a redirect makes sense (but a disambig might). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 13 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[6] as well as several opinion columns, like this one[7]. The case has been discussed in scholarship of varying calibers[8][9][10][11][12] and is mentioned in a law textbook (pg. 774) [13]. Prison policy in the UK for trans prisoners was also seemingly changed in response to the case[14], 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. [15]
  • WP:GEOSCOPE: The case received coverage from national media, including the Guardian [16], BBC [17], Times [18], Independent [19], Telegraph [20], and Sky News [21].
  • WP:DEPTH: In addition to straightforward reporting on the case, the Guardian published two in-depth articles about why the case happened [22] and its effects on the UK's transgender inmate policy [23].
  • 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. [24] [25]
  • 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]
• Keep. Much more sourcing has been added to signify notability, and the case seems to have had enough of an impact on government policy and public discourse to warrant an article. Tulzscha (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely a lack of consensus to delete means that the article is not deleted? I'm therefore not sure why there is a need to relist - the article is clearly noteworthy as the case led directly to a change in UK government policy, the case was raised and discussed in parliament, a number of reliable sources reported on the case including in-depth articles discussing its significance, the case continues to be quoted in literature and academic studies/articles. Slàinte mhath a chàirdean (talk) 19:41, 11 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]

Keep About those specific negative claims of being arrested and imprisoned, that's something they themselves even have talked about those here (parts of what they says https://imgur.com/a/zhLrVjE referring to Evin Prison, if one enables English subtitle) so that factor alone isn't that worrisome realistically but still understandable in strict Wikipedia policies terms if one means. I think the topic is worth to keep given all the local coverage and controversies as the nature of their work on studying cybercrime cases, some news agencies say things against them and some support what they said among many other less official pages and sites, they have been invited as an expert to VOA https://ir.voanews.com/a/6367544.html and BBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX5PVH_6vGU −Ebrahim^talk 23:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is substantial "local coverage" of Mr. Jorjandi which supports the claims made in the article, please add references citing that coverage. As the article currently stands, the only references are:

1. A page on an Iranian "people search" web site.
2. The home page / blog of the Shabgard Security Group (last updated in 2014, currently offline).
3. An archive of a defaced university web site.
4. An archived list of conference speakers identifying him and his employer.

None of these are adequate references for a biography, nor do any of them establish notability. Omphalographer (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed those negative unreferenced claims and added one link from BBC that uses cybercrime expert title for him, used "HPSR Threat Intelligence Briefing Episode 11, February 2014" as a reference, it's copy exists here https://krypt3ia.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/companion-to-hpsr-threat-intelligence-briefing-episode-11-final.pdf which in page 45 it refers to him and added a link of an interview with his lawyer about his open cases in Iran and one other link about what activities he has revealed from another news agency, added some more news agencies articles who have references of him and added also a number of interviews he had with BBC Persian and VOA. There are indeed more stories and controversies about the person but they are in Persian Wikipedia and needs to be translated. −Ebrahim^talk 01:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 8 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) Changing !vote to Delete after waiting for further coverage, of which there was minimal. Madeleine (talk) 02:44, 7 March 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]
• Delete I can't see this article going anywhere. It was not a "Mass" anything and isn't described as such except for the initial first report. Draftify (yeah maybe) but I don't see any changes to the article or to the event in the news since the inital rather muted reports and wonder of the likelyhood of anything new. Maungapohatu (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete. Checking back some time after the event, there were no deaths, and reporting appears to have been restricted to the immediate aftermath. BD2412 T 01:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• move to draft and expand - since more information of this event is available and this discussion is another case of WP:RUSHDELETE as some of the arguments for deletion are based on opinion and frankly too many people are misusing WP:LASTING and routine news as an argument when what defines a lasting event varies from location or time period (and this event occured in Germany which means that event is lasting there compared how it would last in other countries / locations). 216.24.109.110 (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]