Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Adam Anhang


 * 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 keep. Early close per WP:SNOW Yunshui 雲 水 10:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Murder of Adam Anhang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:N. There are 5 criteria guidelines for inclusion of events and this event doesn't meet any of them: (1) though the event occurred 13 years ago, it hasn’t led to anything of WP:LASTING significance (like a new law); (2) though the event has been reported by media in several countries (a pure result of the multiple nationalities of the parties in the murder), its WP:GEOSCOPE impact on any significant region of the world has been none (e.g., it didn’t lead to any new extradition agreement); (3) though media coverage of the event has occurred, all reporting has been narrative reporting, not any WP:INDEPTH coverage from secondary sources (as demonstrated, for example, by new books or feature-length articles written in major news magazines that perform analysis/commentary of murder cases); (4) though limited local media coverage of the event has happened on and off since the 2005 event, any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE has been driven, not by any lasting societal impact as required by the guidelines, but by spikes in narrative news (see THIS for comparison); and (5) though there has been coverage of the event by WP:DIVERSE international sources, this diversity has been consequential to the fact that the parties in the event (the victim, the alleged murderers, and the alleged murder-for-hire employer) all happened to be from different countries (or, in the case of the alleged employer, traveled to a different country), and not – as required by the notability inclusion criteria – because the impact of the event was such that it drove a diversity of news and non-news media to report on it beyond mere ordinary narrative reporting. Mercy11 (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This murder case has no notability other than locally in Puerto Rico as shown by the only 2 references in the article of significance (#s 9 and 10, "Ingresan a Áurea...", and "Arranca Juicio..."), both cites by El Nuevo Dia, a local Puerto Rican newspaper. The other sources in the article are either not related to the murder case at all or are discussions about crime in Puerto Rico in general, making no mention whatsoever of the case. The only exception is a local Puerto Rico FBI Office press release listing (customary). With no significant coverage by reliable sources, the subject of the article has essentially been ignored by the mainstream media. This murder case set no precedent nor left any legacy (despite the allegation of legacy in its Legacy section which, when examined closely, is actually blatant Original Research). As such, this murder case has no encyclopedic value and should be deleted. Mercy11 (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lots of coverage by reliable sources in Canada. See this Canadian article from the National Post dated August 26, 2018. This is a long-running story. See also several articles from the Winnipeg Free Press. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The coverage in Canada is like in Puerto Rico, local coverage, and this is because the person murdered happened to be Canadian, but not because the story itself has any international societal impact. Further a story by 1 single source (National Post) doesn't count as "lots of coverage". This also explains the Winnipeg Free Press news report (the murdered man was born in Winnipeg), and per WP:DIVERSE "A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article." As for "long-running", per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, "...a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." The story has resurfaced at WFP, not because the story has longevity on its own right, but because one of the persons presumed to have taken part in the murder was recently apprehended after many years. Mercy11 (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It was major news in Puerto Rico and, not trying to guess the future but I think much more coverage will come as the trial develops. Antonio Give me love Martin(Wassup?) 05:50, 31 August, 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. A murder case and chase after the person who ordered it, over several countries. Not a "Regular" case in my opinion. Atbannett (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Being a murder-for-hire isn't sufficient basis for an article; local newspapers report them all the time but we don't include them just because they are murder-for-hires. The qualifying reasons are at WP: Notability (events): There must be "demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group [to be] presumed to be notable enough for an article." This case fails both those tests. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh is notable because it led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in the U.S. Hunting down a suspect, even if over several countries, doesn't make a case notable enough either; Interpol does this all the time, but we don't automatically make articles for every Interpol murder case. Also, the wanted person in question hasn't yet been found guilty of ordering the murder. So a statement like "chase after the person who ordered it" is not factual. Mercy11 (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

For example he said: "Fails WP:N. ..no notability other than locally in Puerto Rico as shown by the only 2 references in the article of significance..., both cites by El Nuevo Dia, a local Puerto Rican newspaper... the subject of the article has essentially been ignored by the mainstream media." He fails to acknowledge coverage by: Dateline NBC, a nationally syndicated US program on March 14,2008: titled "The Pink Skirt Murder" or articles in the Miami Herald (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article217599445.html) or in widespread Canadian newspapers (https://globalnews.ca/tag/the-pink-skirt-murder/) or BBC or Daily Mail.
 * Keep. Mercy11 raises some obviously false points:

Mercy11 is also false in stating that the "This murder case set no precedent nor left any legacy." I do not know how legal precedents work, but the FBI using false advertisements, and recruiting the help of Interpol/Spanish authorities to snag an indicted murderer in a foreign country, is not your every day event. In addition, the link to Italy, and how they sheltered an indicted murderer on nebulous pretenses (that, capital punishment is pursued in the US or that Italy does not extradite mothers of children born in Italy) is relevant to other cases of indicted murderers who fled jurisdiction such as the Einhorn murder. Finally this case also involved the wrongful conviction by local courts, that in itself is another story of interest.

Among the other obvious points that argue for notability according to WP:N(E) that Mercy11 ignores. For example, "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance." The Dateline NBC program was from 2008 and we still have articles on the events from the Daily Mail and BBC in England, from the past two weeks.

In conclusion, the story in this article is covered in depth by multiple independent sources (often national scale reporting), from multiple countries, over more than a decade. It involves areas of great contention in the administration of law: international flight from jurisdiction, protection against extradition by the sheltering country, false imprisonment of convicted subjects, the cooperation of international agencies in the apprehension of accused murderers. This will have repercussions in the future, and will be cited in future such cases. Rococo1700 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All those listed are primary sources, i.e., ordinary news reporting. If the news was reported outside the PR/Winnipeg areas it's because of the large Puerto Rican population in south Florida, not because the case has any societal significance in itself. Proof of this is that there isn't a single newspaper (or book, etc.) that has done an analysis/commentary of this murder case to supports statements like "this case involves areas of great contention in the administration of law: international flight from jurisdiction, protection against extradition by the sheltering country, false imprisonment of convicted subjects, the cooperation of international agencies in the apprehension of accused murderers.", which is all WP:OR and which is precisely why this case is no different than any other murder case and should be deleted. The Dateline NBC claim is useless for it fails WP:V; its relevance can't be independently evaluated by editors here. Mercy11 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * MERCY11 complains that this article is not of broad interest, but when one points out that it is, he/she complains that the source (Candian newspapers or NBC national) is not good enough. And then, Mercy11 ignores the international BBC reporting. That alone obviates all the concerns. It is verifiable, it is not original research, it is very strong evidence of notability, and all the different sources over more than a decade after the murder argue this as a news item with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Finally for lasting effect, there is no WP requirement for a murder to change law or society. This murder however, on the basis of the wide coverage, clearly has a large impact. I agree with the other editors above.


 * Also how is it original research to identify the issue of "cooperation of international agencies in the apprehension of an accused (accomplice to) murder" (she is accused of paying someone to murder him and accompanied Anhang to the murder scene). Read any of the sources on her apprehension and that would be what is stated there. That assertion by Mercy11 begs reason. I strongly recommend that the deletion tag be removed. Rococo1700 (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Rococo1700 (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "international" about the BBC report, and it doesn't provide any evidence of notability. (btw, that BBC report is also a primary source). Internationalization of an event in WP:Notability (events)'s terms is always tied to the notion of having widespread impact, and not to being reported by news casts in more than one country. The BBC report was consequential to the fact that one of the persons wanted in connection with the murder was apprehended in Europe, a region that's part of the regional area for BBC coverage. Had the woman been apprehended in Puerto Rico, BBC would had never reported it, just as it never reports on the hundreds of other murder cases in Puerto Rico. Thus, BBC reported it because the woman associated with this ordinary and non international murder case had been apprehended in Europe (consequential), not because the murder case itself had any impact in any British or European societal group. If, however, in the future this murder case has a significant impact on, for example, Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico, then it may be considered notable.Mercy11 (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The British BBC article byline was by an apparently British writer in Madrid, about a woman from Puerto Rico living in Italy to avoid prosecution for a crime that occurred in Puerto Rico. The BBC article is in the US and Canada section. Also I disagree with the definition of a BBC article as a primary source. I have reread the WP:NOR section, and disagree. BBC article was not written by someone close to the event. The newspaper has review of its articles by higher staff. This is a secondary source, very acceptable for Wikipedia articles.--Rococo1700 (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They are very acceptable for use in the article, but only as sources of factual information, not as a basis for determining notability. As an example, newspaper and police reporting are both in the same level: primary sources. Both are close to the event. They are both reporting the Who, What, When, Where, etc. But unlike police reporting, newspaper articles could also do analysis, provide context, perform comparisons, provide commentary, etc. (See WP:PRIMARYNEWS) This mode and detail of writing approaches more that of a book, bringing such newspaper articles more in line with the definition of a secondary source. But there are, so far, not sufficient quantity and diversity of such secondary sources about this murder case to pass the WP:GNG test. Mercy11 (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - per available sources. per coverage of this event. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Having available sources that cover an event is not sufficient grounds to create an article (WP:What Wikipedia is not). There are notability guidelines specific to events (WP:Notability (events)), yet even WP:GNG points to the need for secondary sources, and this event has none; newspapers and a BBC report, the only verifiable sources given so far, could be secondary sources but none of the those newspaper or BBC sources given so far are. Mercy11 (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The has been ONGOING, INDEPTH coverage of this murder:
 * Widow allegedly put $3M bounty on husband's head; Winnipeg magnate Adam Anhang beaten to death in Puerto RicoBarrera, Jorge. Edmonton Journal; Edmonton, Alta. [Edmonton, Alta]07 June 2008: F.10.
 * Slain man's father hopes for closure at last, Sachgau, Oliver. Winnipeg Free Press; Winnipeg, Man. [Winnipeg, Man]02 July 2013: A.3.
 * Man sentenced to 105 years for slaying of Canadian: [Final Edition] The Guelph Mercury; Guelph, Ont. [Guelph, Ont]14 Dec 2007: A8.
 * Widow charged in planning husband's death; Wealthy Canadian real estate investor died in Puerto Rico'', Marino, John. The Ottawa Citizen; Ottawa, Ont. [Ottawa, Ont]07 June 2008: A.4.
 * Anhang family launches $50-M suit over son's slaying in Puerto Rico, Bell, Jason. Winnipeg Free Press; Winnipeg, Man. [Winnipeg, Man]22 Sep 2006: A.1.
 * Widow accused of offering $3M to kill husband; Wealthy Investor; Canadian in midst of divorce at time of slaying, Marino, John. National Post; Don Mills, Ont. [Don Mills, Ont]07 June 2008: A.12.
 * Plus the 2008 Dateline NBC:   I will stop ther, after listing only the first few hits in an news archive search. Meets WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The first 6 in the list above are all routine newspaper murder stories (and all primary sources), not what WP:INDEPTH defines as "in-depth": "In-depth coverage includes analysis", and there is no analysis in any of those 6 news stories because they are all simply reporting that the event did occur. The 7th cite (Dateline NBC) might be considered what Inclusion Criteria terms "in-depth coverage". But while that cite is useful, Notability hangs on much more than 1 single source in-depth coverage source, and WP:EVENTCRITERIA requires 4 other criteria to be considered: lasting societal effect, impact over a large geographical area, covered (in-depth) by a diversity of sources, and continued coverage. Merely re-reporting the event many years later isn't continued coverage. (Most murder cases take years to solve and be brought to justice, so length of time is not what the Criteria is talking about, it is talking about continuous in-depth coverage over many years; see my cite regarding the Murder of Megan Kanka for an example of continuous in-depth coverage). Under "Duration of Coverage" the Inclusion Criteria states, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article", and "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance.". This murder case fails both of these "Continued Coverage" tests. Mercy11 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't bludgeon the process.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:PA. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Mercy11 (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable. Coverage over many years, in multiple outlets, and in countries (also non English. Also Israeli . It does not get much wider). Case is brought up as an example in similar cases. Clearly meets NCRIME andd GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Being reported in many countries is not a criteria for inclusion and, in fact, the word "country" isn't even used in the Criteria. But since several editors seem to think that it matters, I will point out that the event was reported by an Israeli newspaper because the person murdered happened to be Jewish - i.e., purely consequential, and not because of any international impact which is what the Criteria specifies. Mercy11 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Israeli media doesn't cover every murder of a Jew - far from it - but in this case the accused was apparantly falsifying documents to show she was Jewish and immigrate to Israel. As for relevance of coverage in multiple countries - see WP:GEOSCOPE. In this case I see coverage in - Canada, Israel, US (including Puerto Rico), UK, and a I think a few other spots. Coverage spans over many years - see WP:SUSTAINED. Icewhiz (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No one said Israel covers every murder of a Jew (although they probably do), but either case is irrelevant here. What's being said is that the coverage (1) in every place outside PR (including Israel) has been consequential, not the result of any national or global enduring impact. The event has have no lasting impact in Israel or any other region of the world. (2) The alleged "coverage" is not what the Policy calls coverage for purposes of notability: even a huge amount of coverage alone isn't sufficient basis for inclusion, it must be (a) "coverage that persists over a period of time"(WP:N(E)). Do we have several RSs from Israel over the last 13 years? If no, then it doesn't pass the persistent coverage test. (b) Must also be in-depth coverage, and there is none for this murder case, all coverage is newspaper reporting, no critical or comparative analysis. Finally, for inclusion we must also consider the other 3 requirements. For example, coverage cannot just come from one type of source (like just from newspapers), but from a "diversity of sources". None of the paper articles cited so far are secondary sources, they are all primary, because they are only reporting the news, but doing no analysis at all (which would had made them secondary sources). I saw WP:GEOSCOPE, which I have been quoting from the get-go. It says, "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." Again, GEO-coverage has nothing to do with newspapers from a multiplicity of countries, and everything to do with long term impact in a large region of the world. Mercy11 (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - per refs. Per sustained coverage throughout time. Per WP:GNG, WP:ONGOING and WP:INDEPTH.BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:SNOW Keep, per all the above voices and sources. And, honestly, nominator: arguing that all the coverage is local, including local to Puerto Rico, local to Canada (all Canada - last I heard it was a rather large country), the BBC, and now Israel - is becoming just a bit of a stretch. Don't you think? --GRuban (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't get ourselves hung up on number of countries (the policy says nothing about number of countries), and should focus more on the time magnitude ("lasting significance") and space magnitude ("significant region") of the impact of the murder case. These 2 are what the WP:N(E) addresses and, in fact, what it opens up with. As for coverage, the policy trumps quality of coverage ("in-depth) over quantity of coverage (which the policy purposely left in last place). Mercy11 (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The BBC got information from multiple sources and analyzed it. That's WP:SECONDARY news coverage. w umbolo   ^^^  08:13, 7 September 2018 (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.