Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suspected perpetrators of crimes identified with GEDmatch


 * 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. Per consensus, WP:BLPCRIME violation. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

List of suspected perpetrators of crimes identified with GEDmatch

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Having considered the recent discussion of this article, I see two reasons why this article should not exist as it is. In the first place, as pointed out in the discussion, this is an attractive nuisance for WP:BLPCRIME violations. Second, the notion of such a list is a case of WP:RECENTISM. It seems quite likely that this will fairly quickly become routine (or get banned), so while one could reasonably hold the first examples notable in some sense, what has now (judging from the number of entries) started to become commonplace is no longer notable, anymore than the use of fingerprinting, telegraph, police cars, or any other such technology remains eternally noteworthy. Mangoe (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Rename - Many articles attract nuisance policy violators. That's no reason to delete an article that is notable and well sourced. There are other ways to deal with policy violators. Regarding WP:RECENTISM, we are not in the business of predicting the future. At this time it's not commonplace, and we don't know if or when it will be. So we deal with that if the size of the article becomes unmanageable. Sundayclose (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * First, you are predicting the future, by saying that it will forever be notable to record this. Second, well-sourcing is not the issue: identifying people simply because they are suspects is. Mangoe (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say it will be "forever notable". I said it's notable now. I didn't say that well-sourcing is the issue here. I said there's no need to delete an article that is notable and well sourced simply because it attracts policy violators. I will agree to renaming the article to "List of people convicted of crimes identified with GEDmatch". That takes care of the BLP problem if it's enforced, which should be the case for all articles. Sundayclose (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sourcing supports that the topic "list of suspects (or people convicted) using GEDmatch" is notable. It's just articles, often reprinted press releases, saying it was used. Just because a method is notable does not mean a list of every time it's used is notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please tone down the hyperbole. It doesn't help your argument. It's simply not true that none of the sourcing supports conviction. Now you are the one diverting the argument to sourcing. If the title is changed, we can remove the entries that are not adequately sourced. Look, you are perfectly entitled to nominate for deletion. But it's not necessary to pummel those who oppose your nomination with arguments that aren't related to your reasons for nomination. If you continue that it's considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. Let the consensus process proceed. Sundayclose (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't nominate it, and it was a single reply. What I said is that none of the sources establish the topic as a whole as notable, not that there were no sources for convictions. Perhaps you're conflating my statements with Mangoe's? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually you're right, I carelessly didn't notice who made the edit. Apologies. But my comment about sourcing still stands. It's not necessary that the notability of an article be established by a source. There are guidelines and policies to determine notability; or it's done by consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge BLP compliant material into articles dealing with the cases or the companies that did the investigations. Maintaining a list of suspects identified with an investigatory method will never be BLP compliant, and such a list isn't encyclopedic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost the entire article is a WP:BLPCRIME violation. To the extent there is appropriate content, it should be included in the relevant blue-linked articles. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as a general violation of BLPCRIME, but after a TNT approach, would be appropriate to recreate based strictly on those convicted of crimes due to GEDmatch. --M asem (t) 13:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In general I agree with recreating with only those convicted. But instead of TNT, is there a problem with removing those who are not reliably sourced as convicted, then renaming the article? That's what I proposed above. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you look at the article now, you'll see how little of the content was compliant. At this point I don't think there is enough to support a list as it would be easy enough to merge the remaining prose into the related articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the relevant content also seems to already be summarized in lists in the primary GEDmatch article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2021 (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.