Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone in 60 Seconds (bank fraud)


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Gone in 60 Seconds (bank fraud)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a massive WP:BLP violation, particularly of WP:BLPCRIME. Putting aside the horrible wording (calling the charged individuals "criminals") and the listing of each individual by name, age, and place of residence, I don't see how the article can be salvaged. The article may also not be notable under WP:EVENT.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I also nominated 10+ unnecessary redirects the author created here. Antelope Hunter (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - but remake as necessary if the accused are found guilty (with a far better article, of course, and a far more appropriate article name). I'd say a theft of this apparent magnitude IS notable, however. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comments are controversial: You mentioned that magnitude is notable, then why should we delete it? :) Any updates and improvements in article name and content are welcome. Best, Konullu (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply put, the article either needs rewriting from scratch in a new place, or deleting and starting with a blank canvass once the trial concludes and the guilty parties are established. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep it - this bank fraud is quite significant in terms of amount and people involved. This gives awareness to the Wikipedia readers about possible frauds, also informs notable event. The article is well-referenced as this fraud was widely covered in international media. 195.212.29.184 (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to be deleted - very information article with broad information, bank fraud procedure, group members, trial, etc. I was looking for this case and came across this article.94.21.93.218 (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.93.218 (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC) — 94.21.93.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You can't say "Not to be deleted", and your comment doesn't really give valid keep arguments either. (I suspect this IP may have links to the original article creator, especially as they appear to have similar grammatical flaws) Lukeno94 (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't delete - The article is notable: How many frauds with similar size and international coverage have already happened till now? If some wordings are not properly chosen, users are free to edit and develop them, it doesn't imply that article is not needed and this can not be basis for deletion. Based on Wikipedia's philosophy none of the articles are ideal when they are created, they become better after staying online and updates of other users. Best, Konullu (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Wow, sounds like a great scheme. Once there is a conviction, covered by publications, then maybe you have an article, dep on expert writeups. Especially listing all these names at this stage is improper, plus the Armenian emphasis. Not for WP IMHO. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Names of persons should probably be deleted right away by WP:BLP.  It does not seem to be yet established that the event really exists, much less that these people are guilty. (I'm not saying it doesn't and they aren't either.) -Steve Dufour (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note. A sizeable chunk of the article was copied directly from here, so I have removed it, along with the list of suspects. Formerip (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, as the fraud of this magnitude is notable, but fix all BLP issues and maybe change the name for a more appropriate one. At this point the article should say that this is a suspected fraud, and the charges have been made by FBI. I think this has already been done by recent edits, which greatly improved the article. Grand  master  19:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As it stands now, the article has ceased to be a BLP issue and the event is certainly notable. § FreeRangeFrog 03:28, 24 November 2012 (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.