Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Lee Pomeroy


 * 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Killing of Lee Pomeroy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a fatal stabbing that occurred on a train in South East England on 4 January 2019. The incident has received some news coverage and is currently the subject of a criminal investigation. As horrific and tragic as this event is, Wikipedia is not the news. Sadly, deaths from stabbings are an all too frequent occurrence in the UK, and apart from the news coverage received by this one (largely I guess because of its circumstances), there is nothing at present to suggest this crime will have lasting notability. This is Paul (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: A user identifying themselves as a relative of the deceased has requested this article be deleted. This is Paul (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to clarify, I opened this discussion because a speedy deletion tag added by another user was removed. I feel though this is a case of WP:SPEEDY. This is Paul (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Which of the speedy delete criteria do you claim that this article meets? Jim Michael (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Try A7 – No indication of importance. This is Paul (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A7 applies to an article about a "real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event". This was not an organized event, see the note at A7. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had in mind the person element of it, since if kept this article would no doubt eventually contain biographical information about the victim and the perpetrator, as other crime articles do. Let's instead try this one, and in particular point 5 that says: "Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a credible indication of why the subject might be important or significant." There is no indication this incident has notability, and nothing in the article to suggest it will. If we don't have a speedy deletion criteria that covers these particular kinds of issues then sadly we are willfully lacking. This is Paul (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is about a crime, not a person. It has a small amount of biographical info about the victim, as many crime articles do, but that doesn't make it an article about a person. It's about an event, but not an organised one, hence it isn't eligible for A7. Jim Michael (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do hope you read the rest of my post, because the event still isn't notable, and notability is a criteria for speedy deletion. Anyway I'm guessing a speedy deletion won't happen, which was largely why I opened this debate. As I've said elsewhere in this discussion articles like this help nobody. They're created far too soon after the event, and they lack any substance because we simply don't know enough about the incident at this stage. It may be several months before we do. This is Paul (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion. You are not alone in being confused about that, so you ought to read the criteria at WP:CSD.  Notability is of course a point which can be discussed at AFD, but the criteria for CSD are not the same as the criteria for AFD. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that does look a bit confusing, but as I don't often bring stuff to AFD I'm sure I can be excused. I'm tempted to say there's no credible claim of significance but maybe that's also a point of confusion for many. At present the article documents the incident and subsequent investigation, and doesn't suggest it will be covered beyond the usual news cycle. Anyway, I brought it to AFD, which is what I thought would need to be done, and we're having the discussion. This is Paul (talk) 13:47, Today (UTC+0)
 * As was pointed out above, the "no credible claim of significance" criterion (A7) applies only to an article about a "real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event", and A7 says specifically that it is "... a lower standard than notability". --David Biddulph (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes...not quite sure what I was doing there. As it's Sunday I'm probably not fully awake yet. Seriously though, I'm quite surprised we don't have criteria to cover something like this, as articles like this frequently appear, and we keep having these debates. This is Paul (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It is too soon to post content on Wikipedia when it is not known of the level of notability of what happened or even the outcome of this tragic event. The majority of the article is a copy and paste of the relevant news pages, which makes this page unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenb97x (talk • contribs) 18:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Which news articles are you claiming that this article copies & pastes from? Jim Michael (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment There are far too many of these reactionary articles now appearing on this site that are - as someone else has noted - just rolling copy pastes from news articles. The death of Lee Pomeroy is a tragedy (and a day, I believe, before his 52nd birthday too) but the question that should be asked about all crime stories is - will this be notable in 12 months time? The sad answer will be no because between here and 5 January 2020 there will be a lot more tragic deaths. This article is just another variation of Missing white woman syndrome. A middle aged White Guy is killed so the middle class British media goes into a frenzy - contrast to two dozen black kids fatally stabbed in London. Barely gets a meurrrrgh! At best this is a two-line entry on the article about Clandon. It's not worth an article just because it's a slow news day.81.159.167.71 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete: per WP:NOTNEWS., I don't know if it's the IP edit to which you're referring but for their sake of privacy, as early news reports are often inaccurate, I've marked the page as unreviewed so it won't show up in search engines.  Whichever user it is who you are referring to, I extend my condolences for their loss.    SITH   (talk)   18:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: changed !vote to speedy delete per IAR. It's going to get deleted anyway per WP:NOTNEWS and there's no point putting users who are grieving through an extended discussion.    SITH   (talk)   18:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I wasn't sure how best to respond to this. I guess WP:OTRS might be appropriate. Also a speedy delete by another user was reverted which is why I came here rather than restore it. Articles like this really don't help anyone. As you say we shouldn't put someone who's grieving through a prolonged discussion. But also what happened is the subject of a police investigation and there is a risk of people adding speculative information to this article. This is Paul (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment My take is now irrelevant since everyone wants to post at the same time. Anyway, we all know this is a speedy delete right now.Trillfendi (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: per WP:NOTNEWS and per . -- DeFacto (talk). 19:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a mere news story & whether or not Lauren is really a relative makes no difference. We don't delete an article because someone who says that they are connected to the article wants it deleted. Lauren's concerns are unfounded - the article isn't disrespectful, not does it interfere with the police investigation. Jim Michael (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:VICTIM covers it and WP:A7 allows speedy deletion. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Thought odd to see this had a page when reading current events. It is news (possibly important) but until there's more media coverage and a detail of significant impact, it doesn't warrant an article. Kingsif (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait: I'd say we wait for about a week and see what the general result of the situation is before making any decisions on its notability. There's certainly less notable events that deserve having articles. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s only been 10 hours for God’s sake.... Trillfendi (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:CRIME and NOTNEWS, but does not qualify for SPEEDY. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Tragic though it is, there doesn't appear to be anything extraordinary about this crime that makes it sufficiently notable for an article. Ollie231213 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait for a week and re-evaluate then Buttons0603 (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also Comment regarding I'm a bit suspicious of user @Laurenb97x who claims to be a relative but has not shown any evidence to back up this claim, I am concerned that this user's emotive inputs may sway some users' opinions and should be taken with a pinch of salt as we have no way of knowing if they really are who they say they are Buttons0603 (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that any relative of the victim would have more important things on her mind than spending hours working out what evidence to provide and where to satisfy you that she is who she says she is? Your comment is very insensitive. Uninvolved editors are perfectly capable of dispassionately evaluating whether this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Clear delete per WP:NOTNEWS. ansh 666 02:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - for reasons that I've stated above. Jim Michael (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to prove my relation to Lee as there is a lot of journalism surrounding my family currently. Please delete this page not just because of the breach of wikipedia rules mentioned above, but because this is causing harm to the family who are grieving. It is hard enough seeing it on the news as a constant reminder, we do not need additional sources by unknown authors updating regularly on the event and his life as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenb97x (talk • contribs) 09:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although I responded to Lauren's post on the article's talk page I had already come to the conclusion the article didn't meet our notability guidelines and that it should go to AFD. The article was created the day after the incident, and almost certainly at a time when much is still unknown about the case, and therefore it is impossible to establish notability. Consider that while a criminal investigation and any subsequent legal proceedings are still ongoing, the facts of the crime itself cannot be established. There are restrictions on what can be reported, and witnesses have no business relating what they know. Even at trial, the rules of evidence may mean that the full picture does not emerge in open court. In any case such as this one there will be a lot of interest and speculation, but at present there is nothing to suggest the ongoing investigation into this is anything but routine. This is Paul (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is pretty much a textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS, so there is no need to question Laurenb97x's status to determine that this should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't merely a news story. It's a notable killing, on board a passenger train, by a stranger. Jim Michael (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The circumstances in themselves don't make this incident notable. If it were to lead to something like a change in practise on the railways, such as an increased security presence, or something like this case where the phasing out of a particular type of carriage was expedited because of the killing of a passenger, then it would become more notable than it is. This is Paul (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not significant worldwide as I argued here. Wakari07 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost nominated this myself. WP:BLP1E. CoolSkittle  (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete for now...if long-term notability is proven, it can always be recreated. Anecdotally (and for what it's worth): I'm on the east coast of the US, and consider myself reasonably well-informed, and I haven't heard anything about this in the US media. So it's not being picked up worldwide, not as a story of any lasting significance. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Most notable murders in the UK receive little or no mainstream media coverage outside the UK. There's no interest about them in other countries, unless there's an international connection and/or it's a terrorist attack and/or a mass murder. Jim Michael (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This looks like it could be on the local news station, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems a simple and useful description. If you delete this just because someone has asked where would that end? Furthermore, the alleged assailants have been named in the MSM and charged by the Police (in the last hour), so thus legally ok here.Rodolph (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the "delete" opinions are nothing about this being deleted "just because someone has asked", so that is a straw man argument. They are also nothing to do with being "legally ok" or not. The reason for deletion is WP:NOTNEWS, and you have not refuted that. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * KEEP: The article seems as valid as any other article on Wikipedia. Do you intend to delete everything? Rodolph (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This meets the standards for notability: reliable sources.  A lot of people have not read the notability guidelines, which are about sourcing, not content.  Yellowdesk (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * These RS are British-only. The guideline you cite, WP:Notability, talks of sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and [...] not outside the scope of Wikipedia. Also, there are hundreds of thousands of intentional homicides worldwide each year. That is WP:Scope. This specific stabbing adds nothing to our knowledge of stabbings. Wakari07 (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the "delete" opinions expressed here are not based on notability, but on WP:NOTNEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be more narrow in your scope, reliable sources told me about a shooting victim found at a police station on the 11pm news last night. There is a reason why we have WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:1E - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep deletion of articles like this every time there is a significant criminal or terrorist attacks is a problem that should stop Bachcell (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But the WP:NOTNEWS policy says that it's the creation of such articles that should stop. You are entitled to disagree with policy, but that is the consensus-agreed policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete — Yet another article on a crime created way too soon before any lasting impact could possibly be established. Missing the point of Wikipedia is not a newspaper—a core policy—is not the fault of the editors who nominate these articles for deletion; rather, it is the fault of editors who consistently create mirrors of news reports and misconstrue notability guidelines to justify it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * KEEP: you say Wikipedia is not into news... then ban updates of biographies when something happens or they die. Ban anything about anyone alive or something still going on! Rodolph (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not someone just giving the opinion that Wikipedia is not news, but established policy long agreed by consensus. Your claimed consequence of this policy is pretty obviously not a real consequence. I was encouraged by someone a short time ago to resume editing Wikipedia under my user id after a break of several years, on the basis that Wikipedia had grown up a bit since I last used my id, but it seems that that is not the case. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the death of, let us say, Stan Lee happens once in a lifetime and is obviously significant to the biography. Crimes, including murder/shootings etc., are routinely reported on by the media on a daily basis. If you cannot see the difference, a flaw in your understanding of notability guidelines may be to blame. Unless there is a significant lasting impact—which has not been demonstrated here—besides being sad and tragic, we have a NOTNEWS situation. If editors had the patience to wait until the incident established notability, instead of expecting us to ignore policies in hopes that it does some day, these AFDs could be drastically reduced.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is in good shape, and the murder was mentioned in the news even here in Canada. Alex of Canada (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair they reported it in Ireland too on RTÉ News, and I'm assuming CBC reported it in Canada. If that is the case I guess both would have picked up the story from the BBC. This is Paul (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * WAIT another week, KEEP per WP:RAPID. This story is still unfolding, this: Surrey train stabbing: Witness appeal for couple sightings 12 minutes ago from the BBC.  The stabbing to death of a man on a train in the U.K., by a complete stranger is a highly unusual event.  The rush to delete is inappropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RAPID says the opposite of WP:NOTNEWS. With the former being a guideline, but the latter a policy, it's WP:NOTNEWS that should take precedence. This story is unfolding in the same way that dozens of other other news stories from the past week are unfolding: in a way that doesn't give any reason why an encyclopedia, that takes a long-term view of events, should be covering this story. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Phil, NOTNEWS is regularly trumped by crimes that get WP:SIGCOV. Editors curious about how this works can take a look at the archive of Crime-related deletion discussions .  The question is NOT whether or not something is "news," the question is where to draw that line between ROUTINE news events (two teenagers get into a fight, and one pulls a knife,) and recent events that pass WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Every day there are dozens of crimes that get significant coverage in multiple national news sources, and later when new news arises such as arrests, appeals for witnesses and trials. WP:NOTNEWS exists to keep this as an encyclopedia, rather than a commentary on running news. And WP:SIGCOV itself says that sources should be secondary sources, not primary sources such as news reports. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The news reports are indeed secondary sources, not primary. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The distinction between primary and secondary sources is not something that was invented by Wikipedia. If you consult any introductory text on the study of history you will see that news reports are pretty much the archetypal primary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Some journalism is WP:SIGCOV (well-researched deep dives are; breaking who-what-when-where stories are not, although they are WP:RS.) but Note that we regularly start articles about crimes that have just occurred, and this applies not only to events on the scale of the 2016 Nice truck attack and the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, but to notable crimes with few or no deaths. There is nothing wrong with starting such articles, although I personally try very hard to wait until notability is patent. Sometimes, however, notability is clear in the "breaking news" bulletin: 2018 Liège attack, 2017 New York City attempted bombing, 2017 Halamish stabbing attack.  Moreover, we frequently KEEP articles about crimes that have just occurred and are immediately brought to AfD, a few recent examples:  Articles for deletion/Damon Joseph, Articles for deletion/Black Friday Alabama mall shooting, Articles for deletion/2018 Amsterdam stabbing attack, Articles for deletion/Murder of Desirée Mariottini.  Many other crime articles created in the immediate wake of the event are kept without even coming to AfD:  Shooting of Jemel Roberson, Tallahassee shooting, Aberdeen, Maryland shooting, Murders of Louisa Vesterager Jespersen and Maren Ueland, 2018 Melbourne stabbing attack, 2019 Tokyo car attack, 2017 Edmonton attack. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that in other cases many people wrongly consider Wikipedia to be a news service rather than an encyclopedia has no bearing on whether this article should be kept, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing, not bludgeoning. If you can't reply to my statement then just consider the possibility that you might be wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per WP:RAPID - as we have WP:SUSTAINED national (and international) coverage persisting from the date of the event to present (e.g. BBC on 9 Jan The Times on 8 Jan). public killings do not fall within WP:NOTNEWS, as they are not routine events. The crime ticks all of the boxes for WP:GNG/WP:NCRIME - with the possible exception of continuing future coverage (which without a crystal ball, we can not ascertain at this date). Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A clear case for Keep.  Meets WP:GNG.  From the time of the incident to now it's been under WP:SUSTAINED.  Certainly meets WP:RAPID.  XavierItzm (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait per WP:RAPID as above. Improve if possible. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleteper WP:NOTNEWS. Almost a week on and media attention has shifted to another horrific knife murder. There is no indication of lasting notability here. It will be deleted sooner or later so it may as well be now.Charles (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The nebulous and undefined "media attention" argument does not hold water. Even as you typed your comment on 10 January 2019, Pomeroy's murder continued to receive international coverage dated 10 January 2019.  I've updated the article with the latest coverage.  Clearly WP:SUSTAINED is working against you. XavierItzm (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sustained means over a much longer time than a week. So it remains to be seen whether it works against me.Charles (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCRIME; no apparent societal impact or long-lasting significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. As excellently and eloquently explained in The Sun on Wednesday, the length of the news cycle doesn't matter. If a black victim gains 7 days of coverage and nothing after that, we delete. If a white victim gains 14 days of coverage and nothing after that, we still delete. That's per policy, see the fourth sentence in WP:NOTNEWS. w umbolo   ^^^  12:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But, without a CRYSTAL ball, it is impossible to know whether News coverage is ONGOING. Which is why it can be wise to WAIT another week.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wiser still to delete it now, and then if the case becomes notable in the future, resurect the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * note that page creator appears  never to have been notified of this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad. I don't start these discussions very often and I thought a bot would notify them. This is Paul (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:HEY, noting recent upgrades to the article showing ongoing, WP:RS national and international coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Every one of the sources added to the article is a news report, rather than a secondary source. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So basically primary news reports parroting each other? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Currently the last news report on this seems to be 9 January, and of course the media have moved on to another stabbing death. This is Paul (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 10 Jan.,, but more to the pint is the national INDEPTH that ran for several says, and the fact that coverage will resume with the court date in February, if not sooner.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad for missing that local news story in the local Surrey media. Truth is there's always news coverage of a suspect's court appearances in such cases as this one, but that doesn't make the case itself notable. This is Paul (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there will be more news reports when this goes to court, but they will still be news reports, not secondary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete – I think it's close for both BLP1E and GNG. Both just barely apply here. If people can state otherwise I will surely change my vote. Yes, there is coverage from BBC and The Times but I'm unsure if that is sufficient for GNG and there is still BLP1E. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , BLP1E does not apply as the article is not on the BLP/BDPs involved but on the event.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * then should this article just be renamed 2019 Surrey train stabbing? Surely that was a notable event. The single killing really wasn't. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  19:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There was one victim - in which case we often have a "murder/killing of" article. I am neutral on renaming here (depends also on the sources - if they highlight the train station - then yes). In any event - this is not a biography but rather an event article.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING and WP:10YT. See also WP:RECENTISM, of which this a text book example. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2019 (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.