Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime

Sam Mangel

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From my point of view, the subject does not yet meet WP:GNG nor WP:NBLP. I would like to initiate a new, independent review, since the previous AfD closed with no consensus, was populated by now blocked users, the article itself was often abused by blocked users (one, two), and the list of available references on the page are WP:BOMBARD. Almost all of the sources are WP:PASSING, where the subject is only a passing mention, such as this. The strongest source he has from The Times is an interview, so WP:PRIMARY. Other sources such as this are not WP:RS. I am happy to address a constructive discussion. MitYehor📘^^talk 18:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. MitYehor📘^^talk 18:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

2026 White House security incident

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brief event with no indication of lasting notability. The subject here is a temporary lockdown at the White House. As The New York Times reported, "There was no indication that the man, who was taken to a hospital with multiple gunshot wounds, was targeting anyone in the executive complex." elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Security incidents involving Donald Trump per nom. मल्ल (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Is this article not too big to fit as one section on another page? I feel like it needs its own page to explain it all in a better way. ReelCosmix (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't seem to have any connection to the White House or the administration, and it's already falling out of the local news cycle. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Security incidents involving Donald Trump. Most of the current text can be dumped, like the cop innuendo that someone was "acting suspiciously" (they always manage to find someone acting suspiciously...). Einsof (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

When I looked at the cited sources, none of them appeared to say the man was "acting suspiciously". What they said is that he appeared to have a weapon and that when he was approached, he brandished it and ran away and began shooting. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Government attacks on journalists during the Trump presidencies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Initially trying a move request to see if there were any sources or arguments that could pop up to potentially focus or salvage the article. The move discussion ultimately did not work. From what was presented, there is simply not enough justification to write an article called "Government attacks on journalists during the Trump presidencies". It has the Dakota pipeline protests pre-Trump, Puerto Rico protests not revolving around Trump, or George Floyd protests not framed around Trump. The article does not connect the violence to the Trump administration directly, making this WP:OR. Many of these cases of brutality involve local police or other non-federal police.

I expected justification to crop up during the move discussion saying that "yes, there is documentation that the Trump administration directed these cases of violence that the article does not currently attribute to Trump", but no such evidence emerged. Some narrower cases directly attributable to Trump (if high-quality investigative sources explicitly say this) *could* constitute an independent page but the failed move request foreclosed that chance. We now have an indiscriminate list.

Currently, this is a grab bag of violence against journalists in the US from vaguely 2016 to 2021, then again from 2025 onwards. I do not see how that helps readers. The writer evidently did do their homework in researching cases, so content need not be removed and can instead be folded under the broader Timeline of government attacks on journalists in the United States. That article itself likely should be sanded of the presidential administration labelling for pure chronological labelling, due to non-federal cases. Bremps... 04:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep and WP:SNOW close per WP:BEFORE, which says If proposing deletion, consider whether the article could be improved instead. This editor has not considered whether the article can be improved instead, even if we assume his assumptions are true.

The article is titled "during" the Trump presidencies rather than "at the behest" of Trump. So Trump being directly responsible for every single attack on journalists in the article is never actually implied by the article like you claim. If it is, do you have any actual evidence?

It has the Dakota pipeline protests pre-Trump This was not pre-Trump. It was during Obama and during Trump. The last paragraph starts off by saying After the change in administrations, arrests and prosecutions continued as authorities moved to clear the camps. On February 1, 2017, freelance reporter Jenni Monet (Laguna Pueblo) was arrested... So yes, there were arrests of journalists during Trump at the Dakota pipeline protests.

[It has] Puerto Rico protests not revolving around Trump Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States. And the article is defined around attacks on journalists [in the US] during the Trump presidencies. With that in mind, this was an attack on journalists during his first presidency, so it belongs. But even if you were right about this particular point, this would be a reason to remove the section rather than to delete everything in the entire article (WP:BEFORE, WP:NOSE, and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM apply). But personally, I'm very hostile to the idea that territories of the United States should be given sub-par Wikipedia coverage because they are not technically states.

George Floyd protests not framed around Trump Again, no protest needs to be "framed" around Trump to be included by a chronologically-defined article about attacks on journalists. But even if this was an issue... we could change this section and frame it around Trump without deleting the article to solve the problem.

The article does not connect the violence to the Trump administration directly, making this WP:OR Really? Let's read paragraph two of the lede together then:

[The attacks on journalists are] are widely considered the result of a combination of factors. Recent police attacks against journalists have been widely attributed to militarization of police in the U.S., the degree of influence of pro-Israel lobbies and lobbyists on crackdowns on the Gaza war protests by government and university officials, and Trump's militarization and deployment of law enforcement. Civilian attacks against journalists have increased largely as a result of Trump's legal and rhetorical attacks against journalists who are critical of his platform and due to his role propagating election denial conspiracy theories, often resulting in his supporters taking violent action. (citations included in the actual article)

So no, you are wrong, and the article very clearly does connect the violence to Trump directly.

Also, RS like Reporters Without Borders drew explicit connections between Trump and attacks on journalists. And the entire article lede justifies this phenomenon being DUE and NOTABLE as it relates specifically to Trump, even if there's no explicit connection between him and individual attacks, which again, is not a prerequisite for justifying writing this kind of article to begin with if there's enough notable content defined by a certain era.

Many of these cases of brutality involve local police or other non-federal police. Yes they do, because they happened during Trump's presidency and this is a timeline article, meaning we should not arbitrarily remove information from such an article. If you don't like the scope, an RfC to change the article's scope is more appropriate than deleting an article with 191 sources that documents notable events covered nowhere else in Wikipedia.

Currently, this is a grab bag of violence against journalists in the US from vaguely 2016 to 2021, then again from 2025 onwards. No, this is not "vaguely" defined in any sense of the word. The article begins on January 20, 2017, ends on January 20, 2021, begins again on January 20, 2025, and spans to the present. The only exception is if an event happened both before and after Trump's inauguration, in which case the event is included specifying the parts of the event that happened during the previous presidency (in this case, Obama), and the parts of the event that happened during the Trump presidency. That is a concrete definition that is not vague at all, and again, if you don't like it, then advocate to change the article's scope rather than deleting it outright over a problem that can be fixed per WP:BEFORE, WP:NOSE, and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.

This appears to be an argument based on confusion and misunderstandings surrounding of the article content. A single Wikipedia policy was mentioned throughout your entire deletion nomination (WP:OR), but it demonstrably does not even remotely apply. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete unless it's renamed. User:Alexandraaaacs1989 says "the article is titled 'during' the Trump presidencies rather than 'at the behest' of Trump". But either way it imputes responsibility to Trump, whereas not everything bad in the world is because of Trump. This major problem would go away if it's renamed chronologically, like "Government attacks on journalists during the 2010's and 2020's" or something like that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
not everything bad in the world is because of Trump Wikipedia is not a forum.
Let's look at WP:DEL-REASON to see valid circumstances in which you can nominate an article for deletion:
Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria

Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish

Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content

Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes

Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

Articles with subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons

Redundant or otherwise useless templates

Categories representing overcategorization

Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy

Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace

Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
Notice how believing an article move should take place is not a valid reason listed for deletion. If you believe the article should be moved, then start a move discussion. Threatening to delete an article unless it's moved is not the correct way to go about this and does not correspond to Wikipedia policy. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not "suitable for an encyclopedia" for an article to describe a bunch of awful things, and then naming someone in the title who had nothing to do with them. Also, deletion is okay for "Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons", which says: "Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." There are no sources indicating Trump is connected to the content of this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not "suitable for an encyclopedia" for an article to describe a bunch of awful things, and then naming someone in the title who had nothing to do with them Did you read the lede of the article, or my reply to the nominator, before writing this? I already explained where RS claim Trump has something to do with the events.

On the second claim you make, it qualifies deletion is okay if poorly sourced. But you brought no arguments forth saying it's poorly sourced, so your argument is logically invalid.

On a related note, WP:OUTRAGE says The fact that an idea or topic is morally outrageous is not a reason to leave it out of Wikipedia. If a morally outrageous idea or practice has received notable coverage from independent sources (not just its originator), we provide a valuable service by describing it as well as the criticisms and opposition it has received. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

There are two mentions of Trump in the lead: (1) "Trump's actions have contributed to a significant decline in the freedom of the press" and (2) "Recent police attacks against journalists have been widely attributed to ... Trump's militarization[18] and deployment[19][20] of law enforcement." Regarding (1), even assuming it's true and well-sourced, a decline in press freedom is not what the title attributes to Trump, and not what the rest of the lead attributes to Trump. Regarding (2), the link in footnote 18 does not work, I don't see anything in footnote 19 about any attacks on the press, and footnote 20 is not about attacks but about compiling reports on journalists who facilitated leaks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

U.S. Press Freedom Tracker
- From the White House to the House of Representatives, Trump and his allies are working to defund, defang and silence independent reporting.
- If there’s any question about how 2026 is stacking up for press freedom in the United States, we simply need to look at the tape. As we close out February, we’re documenting the highest number of press freedom incidents for the first two months of any year since we started measuring in 2017. We tracked 54 incidents in January, an all-time high. February documentation continues, and includes assaults of journalists covering protests around immigration policy in Minneapolis and Los Angeles.
Reporters Without Borders
- After a century of gradual expansion of press rights in the United States, the country is experiencing its first significant and prolonged decline in press freedom in modern history, and Donald Trump's return to the presidency is greatly exacerbating the situation.
- After winning re-election in 2024, Donald Trump promised to be a dictator “on day one.” When it comes to press freedom, he has kept his word, extending the war on the press he launched while running for his first term with grave attacks on access to reliable information worldwide. Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which monitors “press freedom predators” worldwide, has compiled a timeline of his administration’s assaults on the media in the past year and warns that he risks sinking to the levels of authoritarian regimes.
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
- An attorney from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press highlighted the Trump administration’s threats to press freedom while testifying on Monday before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s Democratic members, cautioning that they represent a significant escalation in the federal government’s efforts to impinge on the independence of the news media.
Committee to Protect Journalists
- Journalists working in the United States are facing extraordinary and intensifying pressures amid President Donald Trump’s second term. From frivolous lawsuits and serious restrictions on coverage, including the removal of experienced journalists from the White House and the Pentagon, to an unprecedented surge of immigration-related assaults on journalists by law enforcement, press freedom in the United States is under siege. While stating its support for the First Amendment, the Trump administration has created barriers to restrict journalists’ access to administration officials and instituted policy changes to control the spread of information.
- The Trump administration has rapidly escalated its attacks on media freedom in the United States in a flurry of executive actions that have made journalists’ ability to report more precarious, ultimately harming the public’s right to know, as CPJ noted in its report on the first 100 days of the Trump administration. Earlier this month, Justice Department officials disregarded usual legal protections for journalists when they raided the home and confiscated the electronic devices of a Washington Post reporter as part of a leak investigation.
American Civil Liberties Union
- These arrests are the latest in a series of attacks by the Trump Administration on the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press. In recent months, the Trump administration has retaliated against journalists and bystanders for recording immigration enforcement activity, conducted a search of a Washington Post journalist’s home after reporting confidential information, punished the Associated Press for refusing to use the Administration’s preferred term for the Gulf of Mexico, and tried to prevent journalists from reporting on non-official information from the Pentagon.
Amnesty International
- On World Press Freedom Day, Journalists Face Increased Pressure, Threats Under Trump Administration [...] Georgia Fort, a regional Emmy-winning independent journalist, woke to the sound of federal agents banging on her door on the morning of January 30, 2026, with a warrant for her arrest in relation to her reporting. It is the kind of scenario familiar to journalists working under repressive governments. But Fort was at her home in the suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota. During President Donald Trump’s second term, his administration has attacked media freedoms with a flurry of executive actions and irregular use of agencies at an alarming rate. Media access to White House pool events and the Pentagon has been restricted; the president and his associates have filed lawsuits against the media; the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has threatened to revoke broadcasting licenses; and at least one reporter has been deported in retaliation for his work, despite being in the country legally.
PEN America
- Arrest of Don Lemon Marks Another Blatant Escalation Against the Press [...] “Once again, the Trump administration has trampled the First Amendment, this time by arresting a journalist who was clearly doing his job. Journalists have a constitutional right to observe, document, and report on matters of public interest, including protests and the actions of government officials, without fear of arrest or retaliation. The fact that a federal magistrate judge and a federal appeals court already rejected the evidence against Lemon makes his arrest all the more troubling, putting on full display the continued misuse of government power to deflect accountability and intimidate a free press,” said Tim Richardson, journalism and disinformation program director at PEN America. “Don Lemon is a journalist, and journalists have the right to gather news. We call on the government to drop all charges. Journalism is not a crime.”
Human Rights Campaign
- Over the past 24 hours, Don Lemon was arrested by federal agents for doing his job: reporting on peaceful protestors in a Minneapolis church. Pam Bondi also announced she arrested three others, including Georgia Fort, another journalist who has been documenting the administration’s actions in Minneapolis. The arrests are a breathtaking escalation of the Trump Administration’s all-out assault on the US Constitution, including conducting unconstitutional searches of people’s homes, attacking voting rights, weaponizing the FCC against free speech, and targeting the rights and health of LGBTQ+ people at every turn.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This article is about actual attacks on journalists: "assault,[2][3] equipment theft and damage,[4] detainment,[5] arrest,[5] cyberattacks,[6] and doxxing" as the lead says. That's not the same as restricting access to government information. Do you have any reliable sources that say the Trump administration has been conducting actual physical attacks on journalists? Just give me one single RS speaking in its own voice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that say the Trump administration has been conducting actual physical attacks on journalists? Just give me one single RS speaking in its own voice. I already have. Many of these sources do, but if just one is enough to convince you:

Committee to Protect Journalists

Journalists working in the United States are facing extraordinary and intensifying pressures amid President Donald Trump’s second term. From frivolous lawsuits and serious restrictions on coverage, including the removal of experienced journalists from the White House and the Pentagon, to an unprecedented surge of immigration-related assaults on journalists by law enforcement, press freedom in the United States is under siege. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Pressures are not attacks. Restrictions on coverage are not attacks. Attacks by LAPD are supervised by the mayor of Los Angeles and the Governor of California, not by the POTUS. Questioning is not an attack. Investigating is not necessarily an attack. CPJ is a knowledgeable and informative interest group, and they don't like Trump's effect on journalism, but even the headlines on their website are much more measured than the headline on this Wikipedia article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

So let me get this straight.

According to the source, press freedom in the United States is under siege by Donald Trump. And one way in which Trump is sieging press freedom is by creating extraordinary and intensifying pressures causing an unprecedented surge of immigration-related assaults on journalists by law enforcement, which the source implies are a direct consequence of Donald Trump's own immigration policy.

Merriam Webster says the definition of "assault" is a violent physical or verbal attack, meaning the source is saying Trump is causing an unprecedented surge of violent physical attacks on journalists with his immigration policy.

But we are not to conclude, based on Trump causing violent physical attacks on journalists with his immigration policy, that the Trump presidency is responsible for physical attacks on journalists? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

If there were a thousand attacks on journalists like this one, it's hard for me to see blaming Trump for it, in a supposedly neutral Wikiepdia article. I don't want to see innocent people attacked, but I don't want to see innocent people blamed for attacks either. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You are moving the goalpost. You asked for one single RS and I provided it. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I went to the advocacy site you linked, and clicked on "unprecedented surge", and then on the first link there. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You asked for one single RS attributing responsibility to Trump for attacks on journalists. I gave one, and you said in response if there were a thousand attacks on journalists like this one, it's hard for me to see blaming Trump for it. That is moving the goalpost at worst, and deflection at best. So I am choosing to disengage from the discussion now. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Winter has ended in the US, so we can put away the COATRACK.

Riposte97 (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Conservatism, Crime, Law, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep and just move to "Media suppression in the United States" or something like that, based on the discussion between Alexandraaaacs1989 and Anythingyouwant above. The number of physical attacks attributable to Trump in the sources are far-outweighed by the number of instances of other kinds of pressure. 🔥Komonzia (message) 11:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Snow Keep. And keep the title. The article clearly (and noted as excessively) sources a rise of press attacks during the Trump administrations and does attribute them to Trump. By my word count (3588 out of 5807), a majority of the article depicts the actions of federal officials in the Trump administrations, so any inference that Trump is at least tangentially responsible is deserved and well-sourced.

If anyone has an issue with the listing of attacks before Trump’s inauguration, those done by local law enforcement, or in Puerto Rico etc, we can address and improve, perhaps with even more paragraphs describing the Trump administration’s language and policies that denigrate and harm journalism, instead of just in the lead. Certainly deleting a well-sourced and researched article because someone doesn’t like an inference, no matter how well sourced, is not the goal here. And people looking for an article on the effect the Trump era had on press freedom should be able to find it here and not in something generic and misleading like "Media Suppression in the United States" or Government attacks on journalists during the 2010's and 2020." per WP:SPADE. Captainbeetroots (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I can see the argument for changing various things through the normal editing process, but I don't think there's a basis for deleting. There is ample reliable sourcing to justify a standalone article, for establishing that there is a consistent theme that takes it out of the realm of coatrack, and for attributing the actions to Trump and his administrations. There is also enough content to justify not merging into some other article; we have plenty of sourcing to indicate that this is something that is different under Trump than it has been under any previous president. I'm in favor of changing the page name, because "Government attacks" sounds to me like violent attacks by government agents, and there are things that fall outside of that definition. I'll suggest: "Government retaliation against journalists under the Trump presidencies". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Timeline of government attacks on journalists in the United States. There is important content on specific incidents which should be preserved, but the current title and lead create a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR issue by framing them as a cohesive phenomenon. Many of the events listed involve non-federal actors or predate/postdate direct executive direction and the lead's attributions go well beyond what the body reliably supports for every case. This is within the scope of WP:MERGE: good content, problematic framing. Also, per WP:CFORK, this content belongs in the broader timeline as opposed to a standalone POV fork.Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Just to quickly give some context around why I originally split this article from Timeline of government attacks on journalists in the United States:
- Ease-of-reference specifically related to Trump on related templates and articles talking about Trump (Template:Immigration policy of the second Trump administration sidebar, Template:Authoritarian drift during the second Trump administration sidebar, and many articles) - It was very difficult before the split to link Trump's sections when the content was all spread out on the Timeline article. With a Trump-dedicated article, those concerns go away.
- Navigational difficulty/independent notability - Trump is independently notable compared with other presidents, per above sources, meaning many readers will only want to read about Trump. And before Trump had this Trump-dedicated article, these readers had to scroll through nearly 10,000 words of content before making it to Trump's section.
- Expectation to grow in size - There are many instances that belong on this article that have not been added (e.g., Georgia Fort, events listed at https://pressfreedomtracker.us/, etc). And there will almost certainly only be more as time goes on. Consequently, it's likely the Timeline article, either already or down the line, will benefit from shortening/summarizing information on this article (rather than excerpting every single section) for the sake of maintaining a reasonable word count. In such a scenario, this article would serve as a more in-depth expansion on Trump's attacks on journalists for those who are interested in reading greater detail.
- They can link to each other - And of course, Template:Main, Template:Further, and sidebar/navbox templates can be used to ensure readers can comfortably navigate between the two articles so readers can access the context that Trump's attacks on journalists, while independently notable, are also part of a broader historical trend in the US.
Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I can't believe what I'm reading here. The OP claims that there is simply not enough justification to write an article called "Government attacks on journalists during the Trump presidencies". This is another one of those Earth1 vs. Earth2 debates. Not only is there justification, it is a cohesive phenomenon, contrary to the above comment. Even if the article is poorly written and presented that isn't a good argument for deletion. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
This discussion has drawn a lot of attention. I would like to clarify my reasoning and the procedures I have undertaken prior to this deletion request.

I do not believe that there is enough justification to create an article called "Government attacks on journalists during the Trump presidencies". I believe that a more narrowly tailored article called "Federal attacks on journalists during the Trump presidencies" may be appropriate. Unfortunately that is against consensus and no longer on the table.

As you can see at Talk:Government attacks on journalists during the Trump presidencies, I argued for the more narrow scope of federal activities. The consensus was against a narrow scope, leaving cases like Puerto Rico up. (I should've been more clear-I believe that incidents involving Puerto Rico should be covered, but not under an article with Trump in the name when Trump is not mentioned in the paragraphs explaining the Puerto Rico demonstrations.)

The people arguing for a refocus of the scope likely are not aware that the previous move request (see above) sought to address this issue. Due to the failure of the move request, we are talking about whether the article as is with the current scope may stand, as the community is against revising the article scope.

Simply put, our status quo is option A, article as is. Option B, new scope, proved unpopular enough to be rejected. Here, we are considering option C, deletion with content merged to mother article, with the options of status quo option A or new proposal option C. Option B has been rejected by the community. Bremps... 05:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Bremps, thank you for further explaining your reasoning. However, these explanations seem to me to come close to arguing for deletion because consensus in a previous discussion didn't go your way. The fact that a previous discussion, and it was a rather brief one, went against a particular change in scope does not in any way preclude further discussions about other approaches to scope, so it's not like deletion has become the only remaining option. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Peixão

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:CRIME, "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". This should be included in Terceiro Comando Puro. Mariamnei (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Christianity, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Jerry Ramrattan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Heavily AI-generated (or at least feels like it), and also appears to have quite a few BLP issues. would (almost) certainly qualify for G10 if it wasn't as "sourced" as it is. User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 05:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Suspected AI-generated articles, and New York. User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 05:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Christopher Paul Hasson

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP1E, received coverage solely for allegedly plotting a terrorist attack that he was not convicted of (instead he was convicted of drug and gun charges). Per WP:BIO1E, we cover the event and not the person; this is a pseudo-biography and so violates the WP:NCRIMINAL recommendations, and he fails every single part of BLP1E:

1. He is discussed in the context of a single event, his alleged terrorism plot (what the article is about), but which he was not convicted of.

2. He is a WP:LOWPROFILE individual.

3. The event is a failed, alleged plot that received coverage for a few months in 2019.

All coverage currently cited in the article is from a few months in 2019, and there does not appear to be anything else. In theory this could survive by being "eventified" if coverage was shown to pass NEVENT, but I haven't found anything. Also, there is the wrinkle that he was never actually convicted for the terrorism plot - which the entire article is about, making the entire article a WP:BLPCRIME violation, so I recommend deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Discrimination. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Curtis Allgier

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E/WP:NCRIMINAL; the crime should be covered and not him, so this could be moved to Murder of Stephen Anderson instead of deleted, but his crime fails WP:NEVENT. It only received brief and not particularly in depth coverage while the trial was ongoing and no retrospectives; the only reason the crime got any coverage is because of his insane tattoos. Skinhead criminal murders corrections officer. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Discrimination. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related AfD discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: South Dakota and Utah. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep, would possibly support a move to Murder of Stephen Anderson or perhaps even State v. Allgier, though. The legal aspects of the case are what received the most WP:SUSTAINED coverage, particularly with the fact that the Utah Supreme Court held that he forfeited his right to legal counsel. See e.g. .

There is coverage from 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2017 about various aspects of his legal appeals, so if kept the article should be edited to reflect this. Katzrockso (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Murder appeals are pretty routine, no? If every murder case that has its appeals covered is notable I struggle to see what murders aren't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, many murder appeals are covered, but one that results in what is commonly considered a fundamental right (the right to an attorney) in the USA to be stripped is not routine. Katzrockso (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think a paragraph and a wire story is much in terms of coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Leroy Dean McGill

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet notability guidelines per WP:CRIME. Neither victim nor perpetrator were independently notable and coverage appears to be local. As heinous as his methods were, they wouldn't be considered historically significant. I would also consider this to be a WP:1E. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Law, Police, and Arizona. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Not gonna argue, but "victim nor perpetrator were independently notable". Most articles related to crimes are like that. I mean, Derek Chauvin was a disitinguished police officer yet unknown to the world, and Floyd was only a drug-addict convicted felon whose fame came by the glorification after his demise. Almost never is a criminal/victim notable. Regardless, not gonna issue challenge. CoryGlee 17:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

And another quick example, Kim Potter, another unknown police officer. Her "victim" a wife-beater, low-level criminal, drug-addict who got killed in a procedure. His fame, as in Floyd, after demise. Like this most crime-related stuff. CoryGlee 17:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Based on arguments that were made in a similar article that was nominated for deletion which ultimately overwhelmingly survived the afd that I personally nominated, see here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Humphreys. The standard set in that discussion pretty much concluded that any death penalty related case should be included in Wikipedia and passes GNG. This article cannot be deleted when articles like Stacey Humphreys are kept. Inexpiable (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete this article is WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. He committed a murder and this article provides undue detail of the crime, much of which is sourced to the case decision and the rest some press accounts around the time of the conviction. His death penalty process doesn't seem to raise anything new either for notability purposes. Oblivy (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep but rename - I believe the article should be expanded somehow and it does pass the guidelines. Alternatively, the article can shift its focus on the crime rather than the perpetrator. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Redirect or Move to a (currently unwritten) article about the Murder of Charles Perez, and rewrite as an event. Neither the WP:PERPETRATOR or WP:VICTIM are separately notable people and this article is a pseudo-biography. The WP:EVENT is notable and has received coverage over 20 years. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
While I agree with the spirit of refocusing on the crime/victims and away from the crominal, I don't see the sources that show coverage over many years. It seems to be a bit of coverage at the time of the crime and the trial, then a trickle when various stages of the appeals process occurred. In my humble opinion nothing about this event is notable. Unless we want to argue (as Inexplable wants to say, and with which I disagree) that any case involving death penalty is inherently notable. Oblivy (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete Looking at the list of sources, they appear to just be local coverage from the past 2 months responding to the pending execution. It doens't even look like his trial or appeals over the last 20 years were covered. And while I certainly feel Inexpiable's frustration, just because that page was kept does not mean we now have a policy that everyone on death row passes GNG. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Patrik Jordan Mathews

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCRIMINAL; also, WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E. Crime is not exceptional and does not pass WP:NEVENT. Sourcing is a brief burst of coverage that the crime happened but no actual reflection on it or anything that would prove notability, and we would need to rescope into an event article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Discrimination. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The subject is also already discussed in the article on The Base (neo-Nazi group), which is the appropriate location for this information per WP:NCRIMINAL. —Em-as-in-emily (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: The sources seem to span a period of about two years, and are all news articles. I don't see anything that sets this fellow apart from the many others who have made similar bad decisions. BLP considerations apply: this guy is young yet, I bet in 10 years he'll regret what he's done and would rather not have a dedicated article on Wikipedia. MediaKyle (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Joel Faviere

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably not enough here for a standalone page, seeking consensus to restore redirect. KH-1 (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: for the record, the previous redirect was to Get Scared. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Get Scared per WP:BANDMEMBER. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:47, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime

Crime

Sam Mangel

2026 White House security incident

Government attacks on journalists during the Trump presidencies

Peixão

Jerry Ramrattan

Christopher Paul Hasson

Curtis Allgier

Leroy Dean McGill

Patrik Jordan Mathews

Joel Faviere

Crime Proposed deletions

Deletion Review

Related Articles