Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enrique Marquez (accomplice)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack. Arguments about BLP1E and CRIME appear well founded on policy and do not undermine the GNG/N arguments for keep as relevant information can be added to the article about the crime. Spartaz Humbug! 11:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Enrique Marquez (US citizen)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:BLPCRIME "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." This is an otherwise-unknown person, not even charged yet, and yet the title of this article describes him as an "accomplice", and the article exists to document this. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Check your twitter feed, Nat; he's about to be indicted, according to every manor media source in the U.S.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So yes, I'm right, he hasn't been charged yet, much less convicted of being an accomplice. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nat Gertler, true, but he is about to be charged with something. This may be like charging Al Capone with tax evasion, they may only charge marquez with violation of the laws on legal transfer of weapons at this point - but once they charge him with something, he certainly has the notoriety to support an article. BPL is for the protection of otherwise obscure people.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect -, I don't normally work on BLP, but I've just looked up WP:CRIME and its policy is "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." I find that a reasonable approach. Most of the sources so far are 'people familiar with the situation.' I think we're all familiar with cases of off-the-record briefings from police (this one, say) that turned out to be pure baloney, and I'd rather not see Wikipedia get caught up in amplifying one. So my vote is redirect: merging attributable content into the main article on the attack. Blythwood (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

*Comment This article had an under construction tag and had been created only 22 minutes when nominated for AfD. I don't think this is really long enough for the creator to get everything together. I do however agree about concerns with the title seeming to imply he's been found guilty. At worst, redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack and userfy. Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack and userfy. This gives almost as much info but doesn't have a pejorative title and at this stage in the investigations we have no idea if this will meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, or if it is a person of interest who will be exonerated next week. Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources abound on this suspect, whose life has been under a media microscope for weeks now. For example, his sham marriage to a Russian woman who paid him, $5000.  to enter a sham marriage so that she could get a green card. .E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Title of article under discussion at article talk page. (neighbor)?  (suspect)?  open to suggestions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Marquez has already confessed to being part of a previous terrorism plot; is documented to have violated immigration laws with a sham marriage in which he was paid by a Russian woman to go through a legal marriage in order for her to gain citizenship; and has confessed to making an illegal weapons transfer (guns used by the San Bernardino murderers). Each of these episodes of his law-breaking sourced to in-depth stories in major media:  no way this is a BLP of a "relatively unknown, non-public figure."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now under arrest [].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack - Per . Parsley Man (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Still not happy about the existence of this article compared to the actual two shooters, but the new arguments for Keep are valid. Parsley Man (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack per the above statements and comments. This appears to be the best solution for this situation.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * redirect FOR NOW but if convicted (or even if goes to trial) will likely become notable enough for a stand alone article per WP:PERP Gaijin42 (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * neutral/keep With the additional prior plans, the green card issue, etc plus WP:PERP on the main incident, I think he pushes into notable. CErtainly that notability is all ultimately derived from the single incident, but thats true of many others like George Zimmerman too.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Retitle to another descriptor which is less prejudicial and redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack. He is an accomplice according to some media sources but WP:CRIME states A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack per WP:BLP1E -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - as new information emerges, his arrest and upcoming trial, we need an article on this person. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack and scrub the word "accomplice" per BLP policy. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete with no redirect -- an obvious BLP1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As the existing title is inherently problematic, the calls for a "redirect" are probably best handled by having an entry on the Enrique Marquez page (which is a disambiguation page) pointing to the page on the shooting... although even that link has BLP concerns. I don't see much point in inventing another file name just to create a redirect at this point. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I've moved the page to Enrique_Marquez (US citizen). I realize page moves aren't optimal while an AFD is going on, but come on; you can't disambiguate with "accomplice" when he hasn't even been convicted. Not sure on AFD etiquette; do we move this page too?  I'll leave that to others more familiar with AFD. This is not an optimal disambiguation, so further discussion on page title can be had at the article talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Do note that I had posted a request for possible title ideas on the article's talk page minutes after creating the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BLP1E does not apply here. In part, because this event is significant and his role in the event is significant. But also because, now that he has come to public attention, his participation:  in a Green card marriage is getting significant attention. If you are in the headlines for 2 crimes, it's not only not a BLP1E, it's problematic to merge the whole bio into teh San Bernardino shooting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. --Carnildo (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Frankly, coverage of Marquez and his activities, biography, conversion, radicalization, backing away from radicalization, gun buying, bomb-making, backing away form bomb-making and - just after the attack - phoning 911 to tell them that he had bought the gund, that Farook and Malik were the shooters and that he was really ticked that they used the guns he bought to do this... and more. I don't have the time to add all that should be added.  Wash Post article:  is a good place to start - for anyone who has time.   I do think that it's more important to add this material than it is to argue about whether to keep a separate page or add this (and his green card marriage to the San Bernardino attack page.  the 2 arguments for separate pages are a.) that he is  accused of a separate event (marriage) crime.  and b.) that the reason to split off material like this guy's amazing path  to radical Islamism is that the main page becomes unwieldy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack. A marriage of convenience and possible illegal gun buy does not satisfy notability. Even the perps of the attack do not have their own articles. WWGB (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack Reader expectations need to be strongly considered here. Any reader of Wikipedia or any person directed to Wikipedia from a service like Google News would expect this content to be included in the main article as a stand-alone section. A new article seems off topic and makes it appear separate from the original case, but it is reasonable to assume there likely wouldn't have been an investigation of Marquez if San Bernardino had never happened.Crtew (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * snow keep at this point. He's been charged with terrorism support and marriage fraud. While there is overlap with the shooting (he was not directly involved in) there is much more to hos story then that. He is the #2 story in the Canadian news and we can expect many updates as the investigation continues and the charges go forward. The new title is better, though not ideal. Not a suitable redirect now and very strange how a person in the world news being charged with terrorism is seriously discussed as suitable for redirect but pageant winners with fleeting coverage qualify for standalone articles. Wikipedia is messed up. Legacypac (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow keep?! You're obviously seeing lots of keeps above that I'm not! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack. WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NOTNEWS. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 09:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Minor player not deserving of his own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2015_San_Bernardino_attack Nothing to say about him beyond his relationship with the attackers and his role in the attacks.  Gnome de plume (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The people here voting redirect should show up on the many Beauty Queen AfDs currently open where there is literally nothing to write about and no sources and no impact on the world. This individual is getting extensive in depth coverage even in Canada (top story behind Canadian Forces in ground combat against ISIL) and well beyond his loose connection to the San Bernedino attack - which only happens to be how he came to be noticed by law enforcement. Could someone with an understanding of BLP policy close this as a snow keep please?  Smack My Head! Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed my !vote, but this is certainly not a snow situation. you should reread WP:SNOW Gaijin42 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The name change was important to do immediately. But events have now overtaken the initial rationale for this nomination. David in DC (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep events have indeed overtaken the initial rationale for this nomination and the earlier delete/merge !votes. per WP:GNG as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Keep it, we can reassess in six months if coverage is better contained within another article.  Unlike Articles for deletion/Ahmed Mohamed (student) there is another article where this coverage could go, but not sure that's what we want yet.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with you about deferring a final decision. But the interim decision should be to redirect. —teb728 t c 05:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The article can be moved to just Enrique Marquez as he is the only person with an article by this name. Someone else suggested Enrique Marquez Jr but I'm not seeing the Jr in the news and his father is not notable. I've dismantled the inappropriate DAB that title points to. There is one guy with a similar (using a second family name) that could be hatnoted, but seems unnecessary as he is not a big search term. Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack. He "is known only in connection with a criminal event"; so WP:CRIMINAL is exactly on point. Notice that this guideline was followed in the case of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik It would be particularly strange if it were ignored in the case of Marquez, whose alleged involvement in the attack was rather peripheral. —teb728 t c 05:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack. If the two perps themselves don't have articles, an alleged minor party in the crime, who is not independently notable, but notable only in connection with this shooting and its legal aftermath, has no business being a separate article. THere's no reason to delete the material, it just belongs with the rest of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2015 San Bernardino attack per nom. Restating WP:BLPCRIME: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" (emphasis added). He has not been convicted, he's barely been arrested. All that the volume of coverage warrants is the briefest of mentions in the main article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack because one event alone does not sufficiently make an article about that person. epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you actually need to read what BLP1E says...because it no longer applies to Marquez. -- Veggies ( talk ) 23:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did check, and now I am certain that this guy is only notable because of this one event. The reason is that no one suspected the dude before he was investigated for being a possible accomplice to the attacks. Please tell me if there is another notable event in which he was involved and that I was not aware of. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm perplexed as to how you can read the third criterion ("If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.") and feel it still applies. Are you arguing that the attacks (deadliest Islamist attack in US since 9/11) are not significant? Because Marquez's role in the attacks and prior involvements in assisting the attackers are quite substantial and are being documented more and more as the story continues unfolding. -- Veggies ( talk ) 02:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hinkley's been a household name for two generations, and a lot of material has been written about him. Not the case with Marquez. It's an apples-and-oranges comparison on several levels.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Being "a household name" is not the criteria. Read what I quoted. -- Veggies ( talk ) 15:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find the statements that coverage of the marriage issue take this outside of WP:BLP1E unconvincing. That is something that is known about him, but it's not what he's known for; that coverage all seems to be in the context of "here's something we know about the guy who is supposed to have supplied the guns". If we had articles revealing he went to Bart Simpson High School, would we say that he was "known for" that and that qualifies him going beyong 1E, or is that just giving us a piece of information on this coverage? People being charged with green card marriages are not something that generally generate much of any attention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Feds disagree, they charged him with immigration fraud: Los Angeles Times: San Bernardino shooter's friend Enrique Marquez accused of fraud in $200-per-month marriage' ; ABC News Enrique Marquez, friend of San Bernardino shooter, had sham marriage .E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those headlines prove my point - they're not "local man has green card marriage", they're covering it within the context of the one event of the shooting. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Above a certain level of notoriety, WP:BLP1E ceases to apply. I understand that you got your back up, because I started the article a couple of hours before the arrests.  But this is routine; note, for example, that Bernie Madoff's article was started the day charges against him were announced.  In Marquez's case, we have involvement in three terrorism events, San Bernardono and 2 plots back in 2012/13.  I started that aritcle because I fail to see how all of this (plus the Green card marriage can be shoehorned into the San Bernardino article.  And, as User:Veggies and several other s point out, this dude is now notorious, way beyond quibbling over BLP -= which in intended only to protect non-notable people from undue publicity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Law enforcement agencies will charge anyone with anything they can. That doesn't translate into additional notability. Marquez is not independently notable for anything at all, only in connection with 2015 San Bernardino attack and investigation relating to it. If he had a warrant for years of unpaid parking tickets, that would have been enforced against him, too, but would not magically make him independently article-worthy. Several people here are confusing "accused of something, which has been mentioned by sources" with WP:NOTABLE for that particular accusation. Doesn't work that way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

*Keep now that he has been charged, and is the subject of numerous reliable sources. Jacona (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The original AfD nominator's criteria has been met. Marquez is now known all over the world, his life has been minutely dissected and examined by reliable media sources, he has been charged in federal court with felony charges, affidavits have been produced as evidence against him into the public record and are now accessible to anyone.... Marquez has definitely met the criteria for a stand-alone article, now. -- Veggies ( talk ) 23:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Trust me, he really isn't "known all over the world". He's not newsworthy here in Britain at all; his arrest and charging were briefly reported and that's it. Just another minor figure possibly involved in terrorism. He doesn't deserve any more than a brief section in the main article on the attack. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? "I don't read the news" is not an argument or an analogy for "he isn't known here." -- Veggies ( talk ) 16:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet Wikipedia biography notability requirements (Subjects notable only for one event)Amineshaker (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack — it's not appropriate for this to stand on its own as an independent BLP until such time as he's convicted of something. Wikipedia has a policy, spelled out at WP:PERP, by which a person who was not already notable for something else does not get over the bar just for being charged with a crime — rather, they remain a WP:BLP1E, not appropriate as the subject of a standalone article, until such time as a court of law finalizes a conviction. As we already know all too well, a not-insignificant portion of Wikipedia's userbase isn't as responsible and conscientious about the sensitivities of a matter like this as many of us lifers are, but instead like to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for drive-by character assassination and presumptions of "guilty until proven innocent" instead of the obverse — and for that reason, this kind of article actually runs the risk of causing a mistrial if we can't absolutely guarantee the utmost level of hypervigilance about its content. So the rule was long ago established that a person does not become notable because of as-yet-untried criminal charges — the appropriate time for a standalone article about him will be if and when a court of law actually comes down with a guilty verdict, and until then it's not appropriate for us to do anything more than briefly mentioning him in the article about the event. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I read it differently. PERP states that "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." I think that applies to this event (deadliest Islamist attack since 9/11). Also, it's worth remembering that we kept another article for a man, not yet convicted of a similar crime. If the stakes for unscrupulous or irresponsible edits is too high, by all means semi-protect the article. But I've never heard of a policy where an article can't be created because it might, through some weird logic, derail a criminal investigation. -- Veggies ( talk ) 03:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What you quote is what WP:PERP says for perpetrators. We cannot at this point treat him as a perpetrator; he has been charged but not convicted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite so. However, there is no prohibition on articles for pre-convicted suspects (cf. Nidal Hasan above). There is only the requirement that editors make serious considerations against creating an article. I feel this event is so historic that it warrants the creation&mdash;even prior to a conviction&mdash;given the tremendous worldwide coverage it has received. (cf. Jihadi John) -- Veggies ( talk ) 04:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I could see making that argument for the shooters, perhaps, but for the guy who bought the guns years before? It's hard to see gun supply as a unique and historic event. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The event is the shooting and Marquez is, so far, the only one charged in connection with the event. The criteria makes distinction over newsworthiness or commonality. The newsworthiness has been achieved. -- Veggies ( talk ) 00:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He's the only one charged so far because the suspects in the attack itself are currently dead. --Carnildo (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The close on that discussion appears to directly contradict WP:NOTDEM, so I would not give it precedential value. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 07:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to. The closing admin notes that the "consensus is clear". -- Veggies ( talk ) 14:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack per above. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't help thinking that many of those voting keep here would be voting delete if this chap wasn't in America. There are many terrorist suspects arrested all over the world. Most of them don't have articles. Why is this one so significant? Answer, he isn't, it's just closer to home for many Wikipedia editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a genetic fallacy to me. -- Veggies ( talk ) 16:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to section of article on the terror attack about this subject. His whole notability is connected to being investigated and charged in connection with that event. All the coverage we need can be included in that article in a section on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see any obvious reason why all the information in this article can't be merged to the San Bernadino attacks article. But, if people start claiming it's too crowded over there to go into full detail, the detail is still highly relevant and abundantly sourced, so the article would have to split back more or less the way it was.  With the caveat that it should get a rename, like Accomplices to the 2015 San Bernadino attack (presuming there's more than one on trial by the time people would decide to resplit) to avoid the BLP1E issue. Wnt (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep he is clearly worthy of inclusion. Curro2 (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment anyone voting delete here that votes keep on a pageant winner should be laughed off Wikipedia. I see people claiming that 1/10,000th the coverage this guy has been receiving is enough to pass GNG. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.