Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokar Tsarnaev


 * 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 SNOW keep. Overwhelming consensus that the brothers Tsarnaev meet the criteria at WP:ONEEVENT, largely favoring Epeefleche's invocation of the line If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. It should also be noted that the article is currently two clicks away from the main page, and that as such it's best that we close this sooner rather than later. If people have BLP concerns, then they can address them on the article and its talk page, and if people think that WP:BLP1E should be amended to cover articles on high-profile individuals, then they can start an RfC. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  20:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokar Tsarnaev

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:PERP. They are notable only in relation to the event, which already has an article. No need for a pseudo-biography. Further, a significant portion of this article is just an unnecessary WP:FORK of the event content. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 15:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete...recentism and not needed fork...aside from the event, they are clearly not notable.--MONGO 15:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree that notability is questionable per WP:ONEEVENT. What is of encyclopedical interest in their biographies may be dealt with in the main article about the Boston bombings. On the other hand we have detailed articles about Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik who are also only notable each for a unique event (if you count the bombing and shooting by Breivik as one coherent act). De728631 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete As stated by MONGO, pertinent info is in main article and there is no need for add'l articles for individuals. Patchallel (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. As to WP:ONEEVENT, the guideline states: "'If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.'"  Clearly the event is highly significant.  Clearly the role of each individual here is significant.  After the keeps flow in, we should SNOW this.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * keep This article needs revising but it should definitely not be deleted, there is a lot of information on these people that cannot fit in Boston Marathon bombings page and, there will be even more information as time progresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.176.42 (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The "one event" rule is totally bizarre; they are notable worldwide, like Breivik and Mengele. Their biographies do not belong in the bombing article, just as the bombing and manhunt details do not belong in their biographies. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral The nominator may have a point. But as more and more press coverage focuses on the subjects of this article, I presume that more and more content will proportionately be added into Wikipedia about them. And it may reach a stage where a sub-article on them will become inevitable. I'm neutral on this.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Agreed with the bizarre one event rule. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were only known in one event and they have a page. Pollack man34 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Jared Lee Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho, James Eagan Holmes I could name more who are only notable for one event but have a page  Jay  Jay What did I do? 15:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This article is a work in progress and contains information about the two that cannot into the Boston Marathon bombings article. I presume more content will be added to this article as more details surrounding the two are released in the coming days. Abstrakt (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is a notable individual and let's not bog down the Boston Marathon page with all the information on the two suspects when we can place it here. BearMan998 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep (maybe even per WP:SNOW?). I agree with User:Epeefleche and his/her understanding of WP:ONEEVENT. The Tsarnaev brothers receive(d) a tremendous amount of media attention. There are other examples of criminals/terrorists only linked to one event who are covered in separate articles (just to name a few famous and not-so-well-known ones from the top of my head: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Anders Behring Breivik, Konrad Kujau, Arno Funke). If there is enough to say about the perpetrators/suspects of a crime and if they received a certain amount of perpetual coverage, I cannot see why there should not be a biographical article. The information itself is clearly notable, no question whatsoever. Of course, the biographical part can be included in the article about the crime/event itself, but if it grows too long (which seems to be the case with Boston Marathon bombings), a separate article is needed.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete It's repetitive and out of date, especially details on the chase which now are old compared to the main article 16:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GCW50 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Clearly not BLP1E per the Epeefleche's sound analysis, we have enough sources and biographical details to support a spinout and a separate article about them. Cavarrone (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep No, not a violation. There are numerous reliable sources which describe their personal life and biography as well.  TB randley  16:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Mountains of precedent consensus indicate keep. It looks like this discussion is clearly heading that way, but the reasons should be clearly explained so that people arguing for deletion can understand why that is not appropriate. Discussions over "Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold" reached the same conclusion, and like that case, there is enough biographical information about these two, and enough information about the event itself, to warrant two separate articles. The line of division of the two topics is a natural one, and their division will certainly aid users in navigating to the particular information they are seeking. WP:CFORK doesn't apply, because the two articles treat separate but related topics, not the same topic from different perspectives. WP:PERP provides guidelines for separation which are met here. Also, we can reasonably assume that this information will continue to have encyclopedic merit for years to come, and so, while recentism may be a valid argument against the inclusion of certain details, it's certainly not a good argument against the existence of the article itself. Of course BLP argues for caution as well, but it does not argue for deletion. This is not a case of Wikipedia bringing unwelcome notoriety to otherwise-unpublicized private details. —Swpbtalk•contribs 16:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This article needs revising but it should definitely not be deleted, there is a lot of information on these people that cannot fit in Boston Marathon bombings page and, there will be even more information as time progresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.176.42 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep but stub and rebuild - right now this is not a biographical article but basically another article about the bombings and chase, which is a useless fork that just means stuff has to be fixed in two places. polarscribe (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Ample precedent: Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan_Sirhan, Leopold and Loeb, etc. This is going to be encyclopedic forever, and separate from the bombing event.  WP:SNOW definitely applies--I'm honestly not sure why it's in play. Hmcnally (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Moreover, the articles you mentioned have much more information about their subjects than the one being discussed. On top of that, does not apply in discussions where there is genuine contention within the community. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As WP:Otherstuffexists points out: "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." Certainly here they are valid.  Even Wikipedia:ONEEVENT itself makes such comparisons.


 * As to SNOW, it fits perfectly: "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." Have you read what I quoted from ONEEVENT above? Do you dispute that the event is significant? Do you dispute that the individuals' roles within it are large ones?  If not, then it doesn't apply.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per WP:ONEEVENT "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." The suspects are known Worldwide it does not get any bigger than that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Interest on an international level, and if kept in the bombing article it would make the bombing article too long. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I do hope that the closing admin will carefully read the entire discussion and review all of the policy/guidelines involved. Take your time and seek the advice of others if needed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Boston Marathon bombing. ONEEVENT/BLP applies here. There is not enough information separation from their role in the attack to make them notable separately from it. In time, we may learn more but with one dead, that will change things and when that happens, a separate article can be spun out. They're searchable names so there's no need to delete. --M ASEM  (t) 16:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Epeeflechee's comments, and because WP:ONEEVENT is satisfied by the worldwide and longterm effects of the bombings and subsequent crimes they are alleged to have committed, the unprecedented lockdown of the Boston area and the widely covered massive dragnet of pursuit, and also because sources exist to flesh out the bio info. Today's papers have more bio info on their background. Comprehensive coverage of the bios would be a disproportionate part of the article on the bombings, which should wind up with only a brief summary. Many killers known only for the killings have had their articles kept in past AFDs, showing a consensus that the perpetrator of a notable crime does not need to be notable independent of the crime. Edison (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - While Mongo and the nominator have a valid point that this is a "not needed fork" at this juncture, there is no doubt that there would be an article on these individuals at some point and that the pair easily pass the GNG criteria now. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:ONEEVENT and Epeecflechee's comments.--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 17:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and split: Socio-politically relevant. --86.164.2.130 (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note The article has been moved twice, and is now at Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. User:Eugen Simion 14 moved it to Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and I moved it further to fix the spelling. Sideways713 (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete using Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and Adam Lanza plus WP:BLP1E as a compass, I am able to fight the urge to create the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 17:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We have to read further than the title of the policy. To what the text of the policy actually says.  Doing so, how does wp:BLP1E require deletion of the article?  The policy states (emphasis added): "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when ...  It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented."  Do you view the event as insignificant?  Or do you view the individuals' role as less than substantial?  Because otherwise, BLP1E does not apply.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Per common sense. Scholars will be studying Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokar Tsarnaev for decades to come.  So it easily easily meets WP:GNG.  It doesn't matter whether or not it meets Notability (people) since WP:GNG supersedes Notability (people).  But in actuality, it also meets criteria #2 of WP:PERP.  So, not matter how you slice or dice it, the result is the same: keep.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The situation with Adam Lanza was quite different - he died on the day of the attack. So no evidence gathering for the trial, no law enforcement work to establish motive, no trial, no sentencing, no subsequent interest in where he/she is (in prison), no legal appeals, etc. In short, the media is going to focus on the Tsarnaevs for months, if not years, and that information - while needed in Wikipedia - would overwhelm the Boston Marathon bombings article, which should be more about the bombings and victims and search for the perpetrators than about the perpetrators themselves. Plus, Lanza was a loner, whereas that matter isn't exactly settled with the Tsarnaevs. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 17:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep because WP:ONEEVENT threshold is satisfied, given that the bombing and its aftermath occurred and unfolded during a high profile and international event and drew much world-wide attention, and because there is ample precedent for having a separate article on the perpetrators (alleged in this case as of the now) of such crimes/acts, for example: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden, Martin Bryant and Martin Peyerl. Additionally, I would like to suggest that those involved with the WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force raise the priority level for maintaining and updating this and similar articles.Drdpw (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:PERP is also met for #2 - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * DELETE Fluppy (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment please include a reason. AfD is not a vote. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into Boston Marathon bombings and redirect - per WP:PERP, "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." The Boston Marathon bombings article could definitely incorporate the information contained in Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Moreover, WP:PERP also states that "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." — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment also, WP:PSEUDO states that "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context." — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply WP:PSEUDO is an essay not a guideline or policy while WP:ONEEVENT is when it comes to notable people outside of one event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * keep It may need cleanup but a separate biographic page is warranted, especially as more details emerge about the subjects. Sadly they are notable and there will be a strong interest in learning about their live paths that lead them to want to commit a terrorist attack, as well as the fait of the one who is still alive. (talk) user:Al83tito  18:02, 20 April 2013


 * Keep Per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:SNOW. They are clearly within the guidelines to merit a stand-alone article.—  - dain   omite    18:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - read SNOW. SNOW doesn't apply to cases of genuine contention in the community. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is much scholarly and socio-political interest in the psychology and motivation behind solo terrorism (and things similar to such terrorism). Many studies will go case by case, name by name. As these men are sure to become study objects referred to in much scholarly literature and other reliable sources for years to come, I consider them notable for Wikipedia. I don't see this as recentism at all. Also, I find that pricacy concerns that are a good reason for being restrictive with "one event" artiicles in many other cases, don't really apply to terrorism and crimes very similar to terrorism. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Merging this back into the bombing article isn't a good idea, I think; that's already large, and will be getting a bit larger, most likely. Adding the two together will create a too-bloated article.  Keep 'em separate, and readable. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:PERP. They are notable only in relation to the event, which already has an article. No need for a pseudo-biography. Further, a significant portion of this article is just an unnecessary WP:FORK of the event content. Meclee (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * AFD is a consensus process, not a vote, so you need to provide your own reasoning, not just copy and paste what User:Gaijin42 said above. —Swpbtalk•contribs 19:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect. They do not seem to be notable as a package or outside their crime -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  18:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons stated above that confirm their notability. I would actually support splitting this article into two separate articles: one for each of them, as right now it just seems like two individual articles shoved together. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. this is definitely a Content fork of which the notable information is already in the main article.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and split - WP:BLP1E definitely does not apply for at least Dzhokar and keeping the information on Tamerlan in the article would seem to be a COATTRACK.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds  —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject meets GNG and 1EVENT does not apply. Eduemoni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 19:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am surprised that there are this many votes to keep.  While the event being significant may allow it to pass ONEEVENT and BLP1E, it still fails WP:PSEUDO, and is borderline for WP:PERP. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Again WP:PSEUDO is not a policy nor a guideline, all the others you mentioned are when it comes to notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion is unnecessary since this should certainly be a redirect at the least and an smerge is appropriate even if BLP1E is held to apply.  That said I think that keeping as a separate article is the best course of action.  Lots of personal details of these individuals have been released / discussed in the media.  presenting that material fully and fairly could easily unbalance the article on the bombings and is exactly what a biography article is well suited for.  Eluchil404 (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.... as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * KEEP There is no way WP:PSEUDO applies at all to support deletion. Massive law enforcement and media investigation is turning up every detail of these suspects lives-no shortage of info.  If we don't provide an article to capture significant biographical info it will all be added to the Bombing article and a big edit war will ensue.Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The event is highly notable and obviously these individuals were critically important. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There are more than one WP guidelines to keep it. And there are many articles about such individuals. Egeymi (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Boston Marathon bombings. Neither of them will ever be notable for anything except for the bombing, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev especially will not. There is no point in covering them in any other context. The fact that other articles get this principle wrong is not grounds to repeat the mistake. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's nice to know you can predict the future. So, who do like in the Derby? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I can be certain that it will be won by a horse. I believe I can be certain that neither subject of the article under discussion has any other notability. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless you can predict which horse, you got nothin'. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up per ONEEVENT above. DodgerOfZion (talk)
 * Keep and split. Sounds like there are folks at the Boston Marathon bombings article who don't want crap about some kid's hobbies and social networking cluttering up their article, and it's hard to blame them!  But it's relevant biography here. Wnt (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep This is a major terrorist attack and the perpetrators already are the subject of immense interest. Whether to split out the articles or not is a matter to be handled at the talk page. Ray  Talk 20:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, add a tag to Boston Marathon bombings and merge the extraneous information out of that article into this one. My76Strat (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral, just to inform you that it exists on the French Wikipedia : fr:Frères Tsarnaïev. I am currently tring to merge the entries on wikidata. I have no opinion on conservation or not on eithe Wikipedia. --MathsPoetry (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, wait, and clean up. The information in this article depicts a current event, and new information is learned daily. For now, there is no way to say with 100% accuracy that these men are only notable for the Boston Marathon bombings (the media states that there are possibilities that they may be connected to larger terrorist regimes and/or activities, although as I said before, there are no 100 percents or guarantees at the moment), and as long as the article is here, it needs a lot of cleaning up. —  That emo over there  (Talk)  20:20, 20 April 2013 (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.