Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions

RfC: Should Notability (criminal acts) be adopted as a guideline?
This is an attempt to get a few more eyes on the proposed guideline, as not very many people have commented as yet. Please read the proposal, its talk page and this page and do what you will; tell us why you love it, urge us to set it on fire, suggest improvements and raise problems. This subpage has been set aside for !voting your endorsement or opposition. Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please use this page to either endorse, oppose, or offer improvements to this subsection of the notability guideline. After reading the relevant guideline proposal, and its related talk page, please provide your opinion here.

Endorse inclusion

 * 1) Endorse.  Yes, we have notability guidelines, generally speaking.  We also have several subsets to the notability guideline when a specific topic/subject matter warrants it. Based on the continual pattern of a. crime happens, b. criminal is added to Wikipedia, c. Victim is added to Wikipedia, d.  AfD for criminal and victim happen, where e.  the exact same arguments appear, general ending in a rather heated debate, I would say that this subset guideline is valid, needed, and important.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  00:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse - if this guideline had existed earlier, it would have avoided a lot of time arguing at AFD about notability. This guideline makes it clear, where existing guidelines did not make it clear, that some events are notable. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Endorse - WP:CREEP must be balanced with WP:NOT. If we need another guideline, we'll make another guideline.  Happy‑melon 11:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Suppport/Endorse - I'm beginning to see a trend at AfD regarding these discussions, and notability in general is just not cutting it. I don't feel this constitutes WP:CREEP because this can be analogous to past tiresome disputes regarding WP:SCHOOL inclusion criteria.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong endorse and support absolutely as the proposed guideline is well-written and spot-on and there is historic and encyclopedic value to criminal acts. Look at how many specialized encyclopedias cover crime.  Thus, cases that received a respectable deal of media coverage have real world notability and are indeed topics that students in law schools will research or that authors will be interested in.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Endorse inclusion. This is very much needed. Well thought out and wrote (aside from the average tweaks here and there). I agree with the rationale of keeper (above and below). I've seen this too many times on AfD and I've been hesitant to actually participate in those discussions, as it was really not clear, either side. This makes it clear, supporting already existing policies and guidelines. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Endorse. I'd say that given the many, many AfDs on such cases which very often end in no consensus due to people interpreting the currently ambiguous ideas that come from existing policies and guidelines, this is warranted, and by no means is it instruction creep because it's necessary as pointed out above.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Endorse I had some prior CREEP concerns, but currently feel the overall benefit of this guideline heavily outweighs that. This guideline is well written in that if it is cited in future AfD discussions, it will clearly explain the logic as to why subject X is notable. It addresses Not News and Biography concerns without contradicting either. Gwynand (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Endorse following the exchange below between AuburnPilot and Wisdom89 that there will be a discussion on article talk pages as to whether there should be a move or not. The guideline, to which I added a couple of tweaks, seems well crafted to answer a specific and frustrating problem--the endless stream of AfD's concerning crime victims.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Endorse Seems to be a worthwhile guideline applying WP:NOT, WP:BLP1E and the like to criminal events, and should reduce the number of highly contentious AFDs on articles such as these. Chuck (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Endorse A very straight-forward message in "in a nutshell" supported by the page. I am open to suggestions that would allow it to be a section of Notability, as there have been fears of instruction creep. Why would I support this page if I agree it to be a part of another page? I do so because I believe that its foundations are strong, and my acceptance of its being merged into another policy page does not mean that I believe the words in this are not worth it. I believe that a compromise solution would be a broader discussion allowing a snippet of this page being included in Notability. Thank you. Kushal 22:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Endorse What I think is important, and is brought out in this proposal, it that what the coverage makes notable enough for inclusion is an article about an event, not a biographical article. The endless stream of articles created in good faith purported to be biographical articles, which then stutter and fail, and become as a result of an complete dearth of information, soon to become coatrack articles, then candidates for deletion, is depressing. The whole situation is created purely because people don't realise what they are actually interested in and what is actually being covered in media. I am satisfied that this guideline deals with that. Notability is far more easily established for widely-syndicated news events than abject nobodies who get murdered. This guideline should save much controversy. Good work Fritzpoll! Jdcooper (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong support This defines what is already the state of consensus when wiser heads prevail at relevant AFD debates. Those past debates show that the same wrongheaded arguments are made and the same arguments that prevail need to be reinvented/restated each time in the absence of a guideline. Moreover, the types of articles this covers are by their nature topics which have strong emotions attached leading to charged debates which have the potential to spill over into drama that extends beyond just the debate page. It's far more difficult and sensitive to argue that a person's brother/sister/child etc.'s murder or disappearance is non-notable than it is their band, despite that the encyclopedic concerns are identical at base. A clear guideline provides a remove that allows us to handle these matters with more equanimity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) EndorseZginder 2008-04-26T20:36Z (UTC)
 * 15) Endorse, seems like a sensible and well thought-out policy. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
 * 16) Support. Wikipedia definitely needs this guideline. Kaldari (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) After having participated in some rather contentious AFDs, we really need something like this. Even if the wording gets tweaked later, at least this puts the framework in place. sho  y  19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Endorse We definitely need this as I strongly believe that an event, while notable, does not make those involved in the event instantly notable too. will381796 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Endorse without prejudice to stating this more succinctly in the main notability or bio guidelines and referring to this as explanatory material. This guideline is good, a great piece of work, in fact. I just fret a bit about policy proliferation. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Endorse. Although I have concerns about extra guidelines making it harder for newbies to find their way, I think we need something like this. As others have said, if it's not perfect now it can always be tweaked later. Kevin (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Endorse. As others have stated there is a genuine need for a policy regarding articles about criminal acts and those people related to crimes. I personally like the current wording but obviously things can be changed later if neccesary.Nrswanson (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion

 * 1) As a separate "notability guideline" there is actually little here not already covered by the other notability guidelines in conjunction with the BLP guidelines. I suggest, instead of creating ANOTHER notability guideline (which Wikipedia has WAY TOO MUCH OF), you might consider creating a style guide like WP:WAF, perhaps converting this to Writing about crime or something like that.  That way, the ideas could be carried into a general format about writing about crimes and criminal acts and victims and the like, while leaving notability up to the already existing guidelines, which are quite well suited to the task, if they are enforced as written. If the existing guidelines aren't being enforced, then creating ANOTHER notability document that ALSO won't be enforced is pointless.  Instead, follow the format of WP:WAF and I think you may have something... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've thought about this overnight, Jayron, and I don't believe a writing guideline is the solution, as you've stated. Our guidelines are not currently well suited to this particular "task".  A style guide isn't needed. The articles that are getting written are being written just fine.  They have citations, they have wikilinks, they are factual, they are sourced.  The problem is there are two conflicting mindsets about what is/isn't notable.  The conflict isn't over the structure or style of the article, but the subject matter.  One camp says "keep" per WP:N (and makes a good point - high profile crimes get news coverage =>reliable sources.)  The other camp says "Delete" per WP:BLP1E.  And rightfully, as the news coverage is about an event, not about a person, per say.  But it is about the person.  But no its not.  But, hey it is about the criminal he/she should have an article too.  No, its about the crime.  And then bunches and bunches of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS AND WP:IDONTLIKEITs show up.  And lots of heat, and no light.   Rinse.  Repeat.  Because in IRL, someone else gets killed and it makes the news and the article gets written and then it gets nominated and sigh.  We need a new inclusion guideline, not a new style guideline.  This one fits nicely alongside other specialized "subguidelines".  Notability (academics).  Notability (books).  Notability (films).  Several others.  And now, a place is needed for Notability (criminal acts). ---  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm with Jayron here, I don't see what this is adding to anything if we're referring back to external notability (apart from the crime) and making yet another place for people to have to look and cite. It hones in some particular issues, (such as naming), which is good but I don't see what the notability adds to BLP1E, etc. For a related discussion that was deleted even though it was Murder of... see Articles for deletion/Murder of Jana Shearer (2nd nomination). I think the recent ones, i.e. Eve Carson will always be more contentious than those where enough has passed that, to be honest, it's out of sight, out of mind. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 18:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that it is your main point, but I wouldn't have closed the Jana Shearer argument that way. If 10 different closing admins looked at that same AfD to close it, I believe it would be closed 10 different ways.  Or at least 5 keep 5 delete.  Which is why we need to bolster the guidelines - it takes the subjectivity out of it.  That AfD you mentioned could easily be brought to deletion review.  But your right, out of sight, out of mind. Which is a shame when a valid article is caught up in it that could of/should of been kept.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, looking at the AfD debates, of which there are many, on this topic, a plethora of policies and guidelines are quoted (normally accurately) by the opposing sides. These debates become as contentious as they are because both sides believe they have the definitive policy and/or guideline to back p their position.  This guideline would hopefully end that by having a single guideline that covered the notability issues of articles about the crime or perpetrators.  Even if the guideline doesn't solve all the issues, it means that arguments at AfDs can be centred on the "battlefield" of a single guideline, making it easier to reach consensus or to extract the valid arguments for the closing admins.   At least, that was my hope! Fritzpoll (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - The goal of reaching consensus on difficult AfD decisions is a laudable one, but I don't think this proposed guideline is going to do it. 1) Like Jayron32, I think the notability discussions in other guidelines such as WP:BIO, WP:NOT, WP:BLP1E are sufficient. Adding another notability guideline actually tends to weaken the existing ones. 2) The proposed notability requirement for victims, "...should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission," is too strict and would exclude, for example, articles such as J. D. Tippit, Ronald Goldman, and Laci Peterson that belong in a comprehensive encyclopedia. 3) The restriction on biographical information may be appropriate for some articles, especially those on living persons, but strikes me as inappropriate when the victim or perpetrator has been the subject of an in-depth biography published by a major (non-tabloid) reliable source. Again, I think the basic concerns are better addressed in WP:BLP. 4) In my opinion, the focus of WP:NOT on "historical notability" is the appropriate guideline, yet the goal of historical notability isn't addressed in this proposed guideline.   BRMo (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry it's taken me a while to respond to this. My response to point 1 is covered elsewhere on this page and basically boils down to there being insufficient clarity within existing guidelines, as evidenced at previous AfDs.
 * 2) absolutely, there would not be articles with those titles.  Laci Peterson for instance is notable for nothing more than a single event, and fails WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO on that basis.  On the other hand, this guideline actually promotes inclusion of this material under the, perhaps, more appropriately titled "Disappearance of Laci Peterson" (although as this is a pre-existing article, it would be subject to consensus on the article's talk page) so this content would not be excluded as was your concern.
 * 3) If the event not the person is to be covered, then material ought to be focussed on the event and the relevant facts. Just because a source exists doesn't means the content is notable.  On the other hand, our notability guidelines are not supposed to assert notability of content within articles on notable topics, so I'm happy to reconsider the wording - it was mostly to prevent memorialising, but perhaps a reference to WP:MEMORIAL would be sufficient?
 * 4) "Historical notability" is a tough nut to crack and its resolution is the last possibly contentious point. the proposal attempts to set standards on the sources such that notability will be established by lengthy and widescale media coverage, and proposes Wikinews at the first resort when these standards are not met. WP:NOT appears primarily to restrict news stories from local news that are one-off reports, saying that these events are not historically notable and so do not merit inclusion( The line Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. following on from your paraphrasing)  but the paragraph itself is unclear.  If taken in parts, it may be interpreted as you have done, but if taken as a whole it makes criminal acts that are covered widely into borderline cases - if this were not so, the AfDs would be easy for the admins to close.  Fritzpoll (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful reply. However, it probably did not have the intended consequence, since I am now more strongly convinced that this draft policy should not be supported.  As your discussion of points 1, 2, and 3 makes clear, this aim of this proposed policy is not to clarify existing policies such as WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:NOT, but actually to impose a different standard than is applied to other subjects in Wikipedia.  Unlike other topics, people primarily known as victims of crimes could never be subjects of Wikipedia biographies, regardless of the amount and quality of reliable source information that may be available.  That strikes me as subtly undermining Wikipedia's core principles aimed toward developing a truly comprehensive encyclopedia.  Your goal may be to reduce AfD debates, but adding conflicting criteria won't necessarily do that; there will continue to be borderline cases.  I wish this effort had gone in a different direction to clarify and strengthen existing guidelines (for example, by better defining the concept of "historical notability") rather than to develop a  conflicting guideline. BRMo (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * People primarily known as victims of crimes should never have an encyclopaedia article dedicated to them, and this guideline is intended to clarify that. The guideline serves to strengthen, for the purposes of criminal acts, the provisions implied by WP:BLP1E - note in the proposal that it states that "Victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on their status as victims." The guideline is intended to only allow the event to be covered if it is sufficiently notable.  This does not undermine WP:N, it defers to WP:BIO in determining if the people involved deserve articles (Quote: "Notability with regards to this is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question.") preventing WP:BIO being used as an argument for inclusion of articles on non-notable victims of crime, and a huge section of the entire guideline is based on the original WP:NOTNEWS.
 * The purpose of this proposed guideline is to clarify how these policies interact when it comes to high-profile crime, and I'm not sure how you feel it undermines them. I commented on the efforts of the guideline towards historical notability, but you haven't commented on them directly, and I would be the first to accept that this may need tightening - it is, after all, a work in progress Fritzpoll (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me try to explain why I see this proposal fundamentally conflicts with other notability guidelines. Our standard guidelines, WP:N and WP:BIO, fundamentally address the question of whether the topic (or person in the case of BIO) has been the subject of reliable and independent secondary source material.  It is an objective standard, which is essentially as broad as possible while still maintaining consistency with the major content policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  WP:BIO then goes on to list some specific criteria for fields such as athletes, entertainers, politicians, etc.  These criteria are sometimes misinterpreted as identifying when an individual "merits" or "deserves" to be the subject of a Wikipedia biography; I think the correct interpretation is that they provide a guide to help in applying the fundamental criteria.  For example, athletes who compete in a high-level, fully professional league almost always have been the subject of reliable and independent secondary source material; hence, an AfD discussion can take that as a working assumption without necessarily tracking down all of the secondary source material (though the editors of the article really should do this).  Of course, the guidelines in WP:N and WP:BIO might, on their own, be interpreted as saying that anything or anyone covered in a newspaper is notable.  Therefore, to keep Wikipedia focused on encyclopedic topics, WP:NOT, and especially WP:NOT add the criteria that "historical" notability must also be a consideration.  It adds that "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."  The wording eliminates biographies on most victims or perpetrators of crimes without prohibiting them in cases where the victim or perpetrator is historically significant and there is ample reliable source material. All of these principles support Wikipedia's mission as a comprehensive encyclopedia that limits its mission to encyclopdic topics.
 * Where I disagree with this new proposed guideline is where it prohibits articles on victims (or in some cases perpetrators) of crimes even though it is clear that the victim or perpetrator is historically significant and that there is ample reliable secondary source material available to write a biography. (For example, although I haven't read them, I notice that J.D. Tippit's name appears in the titles of both a book and a master's thesis published 35 years after his murder and ). This proposed guideline says that no amount of public and/or scholarly attention to these individuals, nor their enduring historical relevance, can ever qualify them as notable for a biography.  To me, that seems fundamentally inconsistent with the standards used throughout the rest of Wikipedia.  We could be left in the strange situation that a person is considered non-notable by Wikipedia, even though they are covered by biographies in a "traditional" encyclopedia (such as Britannica). Your argument seems to be hinged on the view that Wikipedia biographies are awarded to those who "deserve" them, rather than reflecting the interests of authors (and readers) of books, articles, and other reliable secondary source material that an encyclopedia is designed to summarize. BRMo (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If the inclusion criteria for victims/perpetrators were expanded to more explicitly acknowledge inclusion based on historical notability, would that address your objections to this guideline? As I understand it (please forgive/correct this crude summary of your well reasoned argument if I am mistaken) your concern is principally related to the inclusion criteria for victim/perpetrator articles being too restrictive.  Whilst deferring to WP:BIO for notability, I can see from your argument that there is a loophole avoiding inclusion based on historical significance, when that possibly should be the 'main criterion for inclusion.  If this adequately represents your concerns, I will propose a change via WP:BRD.  Please let me know, and thank you for taking hte time to explain your concern to me so thoroughly Fritzpoll (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, my concern would be addressed if the criteria for articles on victimes and/or perpetrators were amended to include the historical hotability of the subject (thereby making them more consistent with WP:NOT). I don't see historical notability as a loophole—it's an essential feature of an encyclopedia.  The third bullet under "Perpetrators" actually goes part way toward meeting my concern, though IMO requiring that the perpetrator be the subject of a book is a bit too stringent.  I think that two or three major articles appearing in national newspapers or magazines a year or more after the event should be sufficient evidence of historical notability. Similar criteria for victimes would avoid deletion of biographies of historically significant victims such as J.D. Tippit, Ronald Goldman, Kitty Genovese, Matthew Shepard, Brandon Teena, etc.  On the other hand, for victims who are still living, I think that WP:BLP1E argues strongly against having a biographical article in almost all cases. BRMo (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I shall make an adjustment. I didn't mean historical notbaility was a loophole - I meant that the guideline as it stands presents a loophole that would allow articles to be excluded that shouldn't be: a loophole for exclusion rather than inclusion.  I'll post to your talk page once the amendment has been made, if that's ok? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. BRMo (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, a substantial proportion of murders get national coverage in New Zealand, but not all of these are worthy of articles. In a larger country such as the USA, national coverage for a criminal act would be unusual and this proposal makes more sense. However, the proposal encourages Recentism as very recent crimes will be given articles, but older ones are unlikely to.- gadfium 05:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand how the guideline discriminates against older crimes. COuld you please go into some more detail? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: on the grounds that crimes, by and large, aren't notable, people are, and historical events are. My rationale is this: If a crime is so significant as to be elevated to the level of historical notability (the Great Train Robbery for instance), it will have an article.  If a crime is not historically significant but involves a significant person, then the crime is best mentioned on that person's page rather than as a separate article - in effect this is saying the crime is significant because of who was involved rather than because of the crime itself.  If no notable people are involved, and the crime isn't elevated to historical significance ... then in all honesty it probably doesn't deserve an article. A comment has been made above about recentism.  I agree.  A crime that is a big deal right now might not be a big deal next year, won't be a big deal in five years' time, will be forgotten in ten years.  Crimes from twenty years ago are not a big deal now.  As a result, only crimes contemporary with Wikipedia are likely to be effected by this policy - people aren't going to go back through the newspapers to see what was big news in 1972 and try to create articles for every crime that was reported in more than one national paper in that year.  It's easy to do that now while the news is current, but almost by definition that makes it news, not encyclopaedic knowledge.  If a crime is historically significant, it will gain a page under that notability criteria.  If it involves notable people, the crime is best discussed on those notable people pages.  In all other cases, I believe it's non-notable news, not an encyclopaedia entry, and has no place on Wikipedia.  So opposed on those grounds. CastorQuinn (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to do a lot of typing on this page recently! Many thanks for your comments. I understand your concerns, but I think that whilst the general notability criteria assess notability based purely on references from third-party independent reliable sources, with few additional caveats, then this problem is going to exist.  One option is to tighten up the notability criteria, but efforts to do so risk having unwanted side-effects, as do changes to WP:NOT that would remove the ambiguities within it.  Actually, what provoked me to write this guideline was the fact that the arguments at AfD were sufficiently strong on both sides of an argument that there could be no consensus, defaulting to a keep.  This guideline actually falls between inclusionism and deletionism (if such philosophies truly exist) in that it prevents some of the articles currently being created and kept after AfD, without allowing mention of a well-documented incident to go unrecorded.  Since this also partly serves as a content guideline, the articles would also be "compelled" by other editors not to include vast amounts of irrelevant memorialising material, but to stick to the pertinent facts.  The problem as it stands is that per WP:NTEMP, notability, once established is never lost, but per WP:NOT historical notability matters.  These two policies conflict, and this guideline seeks to resolve the conflict in this specific set of circumstances.  That said, it may be that you feel it is going about it in the wrong way, in which case it would be good to hear what you feel is specifically wrong with it.  Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (Thanks for the formatting help Keeper - I had a bastard of a time trying to not break the page adding my comment - I hope I don't do it again). Fritzpoll, I think I pretty much stated what I think is wrong with the proposed policy.  If a crime reaches the point of being notable, it will be notable without this policy; if it doesn't satisfy notability without the use of this policy, then I believe it shouldn't be considered notable.  Generating a new policy to protect a group of pages from AfD for Not Notable is not in my opinion the right way to go about it.  The fact that the articles aren't satisfying notability under the current policies isn't a sign that the policies need to be amended, but that the articles aren't notable.  I understand your point about the tussle between Not News and Notability.  In my opinion Notability takes precedence over Not News - and I'm pretty sure that's the way those two policies are supposed to interact: if something is both Notable and News, it deserves an article because - this being an encyclopaedia - we record anything that is noteworthy.  I believe that Not News applies to articles on subjects that are only notable because they are news - if an article that is newsworthy also satisfies Notability, then it deserves an article.  So in my opinion when there is a tussle between people claiming an article is notable and other people claiming it's just news, defaulting to a Keep is the right result - and in fact that's the whole reason we have AfDs defaulting to Keeps in undecided cases.  So generally I oppose the creation of new notability policies to cover groups of articles that are already covered by existing notability policies, when the existing policies are functioning just as they are intended to - as in this case I believe they are.  I do understand your point - I assure you my opposition to the policy proposal, as outlined above, is based on my disagreement with your points, not on my failure to understand them.CastorQuinn (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Crazy busy at the moment, so this is jsut a quick reply to say that it was my failure to understand, and that I wasn't suggesting you hadn't understood the points raised. I'll read your response more thoroughly...soon! Fritzpoll (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This article was already marked as a rejected proposal clear back in April 2008  Canvasing was involved in this poll, see  This policy is more Instruction creep. Any editor with a keyboard can create these silly Notability pages, which duplicate what is already written on the main notability page. Kill this page as others have recently been killed: Notability (living things), Notability (political parties), Notability (law enforcement agencies), Notability (news events) travb (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion about the proposal, although it was largely to prevent good material being deleted/fought over at AfDs. I would ask that you redact the comments about canvassing and vote-stacking as they are patently untrue and unsubstantiated as explained below. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see how informing all interested parties from an AfD (who were on both sides of the argument, and some of whom have opposed this proposal quite adamantly on the talk page of the proposal) is considered "heavy vote stacking" Fritzpoll (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed comment. travb (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested improvements?

 * 1) As I've proposed on the talk page, I suggest making it clear whether "disappearances", which may or may not have come about by criminal acts, fall under the guideline.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if it sparks a widespread, heavy criminal investigation, then yes. In fact, that would probably be an unqualified yes, since nearly all unexplained disappearances are become linked to "crime" in someway.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I have a problem with the suggested titling. As a practical matter, the references to these acts will frequently be by a name, i.e. Natalee Holloway, and it doesn't make sense to have every single reference be Natalee Holloway , or to drive everything through double redirects. There's nothing wrong with titling an article about a crime with the victim's name.Kww (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I support the general idea of this guideline, but I would like to add a statement that many incidents of crime that meet the criteria of this notability guideline can and should be documented in a broader article. Potentially appropriate articles for documenting individual crime incidents can include articles about:
 * that type of crime (for example, Art theft, List of school-related attacks, or Options backdating),
 * the place where the crime occurred,
 * the institution (e.g., a university or a museum) affected by the crime,
 * the victim (if otherwise notable),
 * the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator (if otherwise notable),
 * the derivative work (for example, film, TV program, or book) based on the crime incident, or
 * something notable that happened as a result of the crime (for example, a new law that was enacted in reaction to a particular criminal act).
 * If content about a specific criminal incident can easily fit into one of these types of articles, it should not get its own article but should be merged into the broader article.
 * Additionally, I'm not sure the title Notability (criminal acts) is ideal. Some crimes, such as fraud, do not occur as discrete "acts". Could it be called Notability (crime incidents)? --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Note. I've added this discussion here, to help bring this discussion to a larger audience. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you - anything to give this the widest possible airing. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How about also including the discussion at WP:AfD to get a wider view?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already popped a one-liner on the talk page Fritzpoll (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment – in a nutshell: it is important for the guideline to ensure respect for both the victim and the integrity of the judicial process.  I think more emphasis should be paid to "In particular, editors should remember that someone accused of a crime is not considered guilty of that crime until they have been found to be so under judicial process. If such adjudication has not occurred, editors must give serious consideration into not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured" and far less to WP:MEMORIAL, even if the end result is the same.  There may be members of the public who spend a lot more time on Wikipedia than paying attention to the local news, and some of these will get called for jury duty one day.  In the case of living victims (either non-notable or semi-notable), it is probably better to have no article at all.  69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Article titles
My only true objection to this proposal (which I otherwise support) is the sweeping assumptions made in the section regarding titles. This proposal seems to assume that one cannot cover the event if the article is titled after the victim or suspect. In some cases, the notability is derived specifically from who the victim/suspect is, is presumed to be, or some trait the media has latched onto. "Criminal acts" is just too broad of a grouping to make sweeping naming suggestions, and I believe existing guidelines are sufficient enough to allow this broad category of articles to be treated on a case by case basis. A guideline would of course help solve these questions, but as it is currently written, I believe it makes too large of an assumption about such a wide range of articles (and needs to make allowances for articles that shouldn't be moved to Disappearance of XYZ or Kidnapping of XYZ).

Additionally, there are cases where biographical information is required to fully illustrate a case, and it is best for the article to reside at the name of the person who is the subject of whatever action the article discusses (whether it be a murder, kidnapping, or disappearance). This also goes to the most likely search term, and how the case is referred to in the sources used within the article. - auburn pilot   talk  18:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to both of the above points by Kww and auburn. My intention in specifying the title this way was because it best illustrates what the content of the articles ought to be.  If an article is titled after a person, it implies that the article is a biography.  This is explicitly not the impression I would hope to be fostered, since the article should be about the event.  I forsee content wars along the lines of "it's got his/her name as the article title, so we should include educational history in there as well". The guideline as intended was to inhibit the desire to include information on otherwise non-notable persons, make the article relevant to the notable material, and suggests redirects/disambiguation to assist in finding the material.  Is it that you don't agree with what I've written in this, or is it that it is not clear from the guideline that this is what is intended? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edit here alleviates the concerns I had. Thanks! - auburn pilot   talk  16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to have done so. I hope you'll be able to endorse inclusion at some point Fritzpoll (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion on Captain Midnight, Fritzpoll? Kushal 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In what sense? Fritzpoll (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I meant Captain Midnight (HBO). I was just curious whether you support the article be renamed. Kushal 02:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The key thing regarding article titles is WP:COATRACK, which, while it is not a policy, is in my mind crucial. I think an article's title should always reflect the content. If the article is just gonna be:

"Phillipa Floppula was a Swiss teenager. She had two parents and a name. Once, she went to study in America and while she was there John Q. Killer went mental on her campus and shot 8293748374 people, including her. When Killer got up that morning he had figs for breakfast. Then he had a shower, then he brushed his teeth etc etc" then clearly the article should not exist. As far as I am concerned the same thing applies to murders and disappearances; if the article is about a murder or a disappearance, it should be called that. Obviously it is a less clear-cut case, but if it was simple we wouldn't need a guideline. If all the AfD controversial discussions were just speedy renamed then most problems would be solved. Notability, as quoth on WP:N, would trivially be satisfied for the event in a majority of those cases, and AfD would be far lighter in its load. Jdcooper (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Lack of discussion => no consensus
This proposal has been widely advertised, and yet there are only 15 endorsement/opposition comments on the opinions page. As such, User: Stifle has correctly marked this as rejected. If the community wishes to resurrect this proposal when the next set of AfDs on this matter crop up, it is a simple matter just to change the rejected tag back to the active proposal tag. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Reactivated". Please see this discussion--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Added material
I've added a paragraph to the perpatrators section that, if adopted, would help resolve a knotty dispute in the American Criminals category. David in DC (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi David - I've temporarily moved your addition out. What problem will it solve? Fritzpoll (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere, sorry for doing this bass-ackwards. The discussion and andswer are now on the proposed guideline's talk page, where I should have started. David in DC (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Canvasing/Advertising efforts
Despite “advertising efforts” of Fritzpoll, who canvased 42 users, this page was rejected as a proposal clear back in April 2008  Of the 42 editors, 6 decided to respond to this request for comment, all 6 editors endorsed this page.

“Advertising efforts” of those editors who responded on this page:
 * User_talk:AuburnPilot/Archive_4
 * User_talk:Gwynand/Archive_1
 * User_talk:HisSpaceResearch/Archive_5
 * User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archives/2008/March
 * User_talk:Wehwalt/Archive_1
 * User_talk:Wisdom89/Archive_5

All users canvassed:
 * 16:05, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Sceptre/Archive44 ‎
 * 16:02, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Cxz111 ‎
 * 16:02, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Edmund Patrick ‎
 * 15:52, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rooot ‎
 * 15:52, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Edison ‎
 * 15:51, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Wisdom89 ‎
 * 15:51, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Deor ‎
 * 15:51, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Quale ‎
 * 15:50, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Resolute ‎
 * 15:50, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Malik Shabazz ‎
 * 15:49, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dhartung ‎
 * 15:49, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:OldakQuill ‎
 * 15:48, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:JohnCD ‎
 * 15:46, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:MurderWatcher1 ‎
 * 15:46, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Cheeser1 ‎
 * 15:45, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:John254 ‎
 * 15:45, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Wehwalt ‎
 * 15:44, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dougie WII ‎
 * 15:44, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Cougar Draven ‎ (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
 * 15:43, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:A Nobody ‎
 * 15:42, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:AuburnPilot ‎
 * 15:41, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gwynand ‎
 * 15:41, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:LoverOfArt ‎
 * 15:39, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Reywas92 ‎
 * 15:38, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mikehelms ‎ (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
 * 15:38, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Editorofthewiki ‎
 * 15:37, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro ‎
 * 15:37, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Scanlan ‎
 * 15:36, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Kintetsubuffalo ‎
 * 15:35, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:24.124.109.67 ‎ (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
 * 15:33, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Biruitorul ‎
 * 15:33, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dysepsion ‎
 * 15:33, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:HisSpaceResearch/Archive 5 ‎
 * 15:32, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:WWGB ‎
 * 15:31, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jennavecia ‎
 * 15:31, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Damicatz/Archive 1 ‎
 * 15:30, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Remember ‎
 * 15:30, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy ‎
 * 15:29, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Star Mississippi ‎
 * 15:29, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tlogmer ‎
 * 15:28, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:CaliforniaAliBaba ‎ (→New policy proposal that may be of interest)
 * 15:28, 19 March 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:BlueAg09 ‎ (ce)

travb (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Those users were contacted because of their involvement in a particular series of AfDs where the cogent points suggested as a solution formed the basis of this proposal.  Canvassing is trying to stack the vote by persuading people who only have a particular opinion to "vote" - it is not my fault that only a certain group chose to do so, and my request to them all was identical, and, I believe, neutrally worded.  Not sure why how you've stumbled on this (now reasonably old) proposal, although it garners periodic bursts of interest.  I'd also point out that the original marking of the proposal as rejected was done after the above people had a chance to comment, and then was undone by someone other than me.  I must say I slightly resent the implications of your commentary here, but I shall assume that this is merely the result of a forceful opinion Fritzpoll (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see 21 users supporting this as a guideline, and six users opposing it. Isn't that sufficient to promote it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not for me to judge, I fear. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)