Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsarnaev family


 * 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. Opinions are split numerically. The "delete" side puts forth WP:BLP1E, while the "keep" side argues that this is a list associated with a notable topic much like Family of Barack Obama. Both are at least comprehensible arguments, but only the "delete" argument has direct policy support, while the "keep" side is weakened by the last three opinions, which must be discounted because they do not address anything relevant to the policies and guidelines under discussion. This leads me to find, after considering the strength of the respective arguments, a consensus in favor of deletion.  Sandstein  19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Tsarnaev family

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All of these are basically WP:BLP1E off their relationship to the bomber/s. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:DEPTH. I am seeing a-lot of widespread coverage here involving the family so my opinion is to keep as these are not low-profile individuals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This article originated as an article about both Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.  It was decided to split the article so there was one for each brother, leaving the question of what to do with the related individuals.  If someone has a better solution than creating an article for the family, I would be open to it.  --BrianCUA (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per WP:BLP1E. Low-profile individuals who have only been covered in the context of one event, did not play a substanial role in that event, and are likely to remain low-profile. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, Same reason as Brian above. Consensus on the talk page for the original article was to split it in three; one for each brother and one to preserve the 'related individuals' section which used to be on the original article. all the content in question has been here for two years already without dispute. --ERAGON (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:BLP1E. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On a related note, if the community decides on deletion the Katherine Russel bit should be migrated into a footnote on Tamerlan's article.--ERAGON (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The section on Katherine Russel should be preserved even if this article is deleted. See very recent story about her in March 2015 in New York Daily NewsABC News and others. werldwayd (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Definitely Delete. You know that these are living, non-notable relatives of notable people, right? It's fine to mention their existence in the notable person's article, to the extent relevant and encyclopedic to the subject's bio, but this article is totally inappropriate, a textbook case of WP:BLP1E.  I ask the closing sysop to note that the BLP policy point here needs to carry the day, even if there's a large number of keep votes "because we have this sourced content and nowhere else to put it" or some other spurious rationale.  Where's the article on the Unabomber's mom or Mohammed Atta's mom or Anders Breivik's mom?  Exactly. -- Y not? 14:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * He's not the Unabomber's mom, but David Kaczynski has a reasonable article. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per previous arguments. This family contained two murderers, and other members who received media attention when things were dug up on their religious views or non-terror related convictions. Obviously information on their upbringing should go on the articles of the murderers themselves, and relevant information on the widow to Tamerlan's article. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - A three way split is a reasonable way to avoid duplicating material unnecessarily. The material will presumably be retained regardless (it most existed in the combined biography for a long time before the split) - the only question is the best way to organize it.  Those arguing BLP1E are partially correct, but also partially wrong as this is not pretending to be a biography of an otherwise non-notable person but rather a collection of background information on family members.  It is not unusual to handle not-too-notable family members in this fashion.  See, for example, Family of Barack Obama which lists many living people notable only for being related to Obama.  In other words, BLP1E generally doesn't apply to list articles (which is what this is).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOTINHERITED. If any details about these relatives' lives are salient to the bombings or the trial, they can be included in the pages for those events.--132.236.216.223 (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Split - The family background portion is already included in the brothers' articles. The rest of it should go to individual pages. Theoretically they could be AfD'd once split; given, but the lack of any independent articles about Ruslan Tsarni, I would expect only the females to be kept. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I honestly don't think much of the information on the female relatives is necessary. Any relevant info can be included in some other article related to the Tsarnaev brothers or the Boston attacks. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - the family portrait lends a peek into the minds of the perps. Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Keep if we have enough information on the other members of the family that is relevant. If not, delete. In fact, I agree with ThaddeusB, although I'm kind of fuzzy about the comparison between a governmental leader and an infamous terrorist, but whatever. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - this information provides depth and is relevant. Merging this information would be difficult. Hshook (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2015 (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.