Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime

Points of interest related to Crime on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Crime. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Crime|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Crime. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime/archive

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography.

See also: Social science-related deletions.

Paneb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Paneb is only notable in the context of the Papyrus Salt 124 and most of this page is copied from the Accusations against Paneb section of said article PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 13:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Crime, and Egypt. PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 13:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Silvagni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability guidelines.

As a sportsperson, fails WP:YOUNGATH. The subject had only an small junior career with the level of coverage/standard of references being WP:ROUTINE.

As a criminal, fails WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E. This crime is the only event the subject is known for; it remains a recent event in the active news cycle, and there is no reason to think it will become a "well-documented historic event" as described by WP:CRIME.

Subject being a member of the Silvagni family does not confer notability per WP:INVALIDBIO.

I don't see an alternative to deletion, nor a valid redirect target. Aspirex (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Crime, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails WP:PERP. Also WP:NOTINHERITED applies. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mate this is absolutely massive news in the AFL world, and the amount of page views, edits and media resources as proof of that.

I also don't think the AFL rookie listed player that played 4 games in 2009 is a "well-documented historic event" either but they still warrant a page. Matt jobe watson (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP. LibStar (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm not seeing criminal notability, the sporting career seems to be low-level, with a lack of coverage to show RS. I'm not showing notability in either case. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Tisdel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article subject is non-notable apart from her association with Brandon Tina. This article is pretty much the definition of WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:COATRACK. Much of the content in this article belongs in the article about Teena or already is as it's actually about Teena. Removing all the content about Teena would leave nothing but poorly-sourced personal life stuff. The article also has glaring BLP issues, including sourcing problems, for example classmates.com being used and links to court case documents which are explicitly inappropriate for a BLP. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 16:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article just had over 1200 views a few days ago, Tisdel is a very notable public person portrayed in both a documentary and Academy Award winning film. Citations can be fixed as needed. HesioneHushabye (talk)

This doesn't address any of the issues raised. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 01:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because her role was significant and the conflict over her portrayal in the movie. This was documented in this 2016 academic book. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yanai Hetzroni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Also including

• Liel Hetzroni

Over 1,000 Israelis were killed in the October 7 attacks. There appears to be nothing that makes these children, however senseless, tragic and painful their deaths are, anymore worthy of an article than the many others who were killed in the attacks. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a Wikipedia policy. All of the coverage basically dates to around the same time as the attacks, raising WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS concerns. It's worth noting that later Haaretz reporting from 2024 found that the house both children were in was one that had been deliberately shelled and raided by Israeli military forces following a failed hostage negotiation [1], something which is omitted from the articles at the time of this nomination. The place to cover both of these children is the Be'eri massacre article, where they are already mentioned and their deaths can be placed into context with wider events of the Kibbutz massacre. WP:VICTIM says: "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." Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Israel, and Palestine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect both to Be'eri massacre. Fail WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not an easy case. There are reliable sources, and I agree there is enough coverage to establish notability. But this coverage is very closely tied to the moment when the tragic deaths occurred. After looking at WP:NOTMEMORIAL, I am also persuaded that it is better not to keep this as a standalone page, and instead to incorporate the relevant material into the main article about the massacre. Ismeiri (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both easily meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NBIO. When that is the case, WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply since that is only when the article does not otherwise satisfy notability requirements. In this case, both articles have significant, secondary, independent, reliable coverage. Outlets include The Independent, BBC, National Post, The Jerusalem Post (multiple times), and many, many more. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You haven't provided a good reason why these articles should be an exception to the guidance given at WP:VICTIM. Killing of civilians and taking civilians as hostages are war crimes under the Geneva convention, and they therefore clearly fall under the "criminal event" criteria for WP:VICTIM to be applicable. WP:VICTIM suggests that exceptions to this guidance should have ...had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. (emphasis mine). I don't think it's reasonable to argue that these children had a large role in the October 7 attacks so I don't consider this applicable. The appropriate place to cover these children is the Be'eri massacre article in line with the guidance at WP:VICTIM. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both into Be'eri massacre. Horrifying and tragic, but this is a Fork, and the information would be better treated as part of the whole terrorist slaughter of innocent civilians. I've been consistent with avoiding Forks for such sensitive issues; see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of statements by Israeli officials cited as genocidal. I'd say merge rather than redirect, because there are additional sources that should be saved. Bearian (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vahajarvi school stabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see WP:LASTING impact, nor have I been able to find secondary sources (WP:PRIMARYNEWS). lp0 on fire () 11:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Finland. lp0 on fire () 11:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (or just Redirect) to List of school attacks in Finland where this attack is already summarized. WP:NOTNEWS. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is. Many cases like these even with less affected have gotten their own page - Galdora (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep because all these other crimes have got their own permanent page AnAstronautsPhotographsFromSpace (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Bear in mind WP:OSE. Many of those other articles probably do meet WP:NEVENT, and if not then they should be deleted as well. lp0 on fire () 07:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of school attacks in Finland per WP:NOTNEWS. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Dhakal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP1E, lacks the sustained coverage from reliable independent sources to justify an article. No immediately obvious redirect target either. Fram (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Education, and Nepal. Fram (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Events. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per WP:BLP1E. Svartner (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like it fails WP:SIGCOV with only one news article saying much of anything. Search results are mostly social media posts. There might me some marginal reasoning to merge to 2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests, but he isn't mentioned there, nor does there seem to be a really good place for it. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Please give me a couple of days to do more research, Nepal being difficult to research, due to recent historical events. Bearian (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - he's really part of the 2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests, and according to my real life Nepali source, he's on social media and young people of his generation are talking about him. I'm not sure if I'll have time before the Holidays to work on it, though. Bearian (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests: He was part of these protests and may at some point become notable for his own article. 🄻🄰 14:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The majority of the sources come from social media. Aneirinn (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge WP:BLP1E, not separately notable from the protest itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests since there was enough notability in his story for this, but not enough for this article separately. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah's drone smuggling network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominating this article for deletion. The article's subject has not received WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS that would establish it as an existing entity, let alone one that would qualify as notable. Reliable sources do not treat "Hezbollah’s drone smuggling network" as a real thing run by Hezbollah or any other kind of programme or distinct unit. The article stitches together isolated incidents across different countries and years, none of which are presented by reliable sources as related or indeed part of a unified network. The result is an editor-constructed synthetic narrative rather than a topic with demonstrable independent notability.

This selective compilation of routine reporting is, I think, a kind of gussied up WP:OR, because the sources themselves do not frame these events as part of a broader, coordinated Hezbollah initiative. Presenting scattered allegations and news items as though they document a single operational structure is a form of WP:SYNTH, and it gives WP:UNDUE weight to a connection that reliable sources do not make. Speaking of sources, much of the article relies on charges and statements by prosecutors rather than legal outcomes or independent reporting, presenting allegations as fact. The article ends up raising WP:BLPCRIME concerns by presenting unreliable or unsustained allegations about living individuals without the level of high-quality, independent sourcing required to include the information on-wiki.

When it comes to sourcing in general the article relies heavily on unreliable and partisan outlets. Israel Hayom is an Adelson-funded Netanyahu-aligned publication. Iran International is frequently regarded as politically influenced and unreliable for uncorroborated security claims. "This Is Beirut" lacks a track record for reliable coverage of intelligence or terrorism matters. "Defense Mirror" is a content aggregator without editorial standards. Kataeb.org is a political party's website.

These concerns have been noted by another editor on the article's DYK nomination as well.

Any reliably sourced and neutrally presented material can be merged into more appropriate existing pages, such as Hezbollah, Islamic terrorism in Europe, or Terrorism in Europe, where such content can be placed in proper context without synthesis. The article itself should be deleted as a non-notable, poorly sourced, and synthesis-based content fork. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Lebanon, and Europe. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep - I believe this article should stay on Wikipedia because it meets the rules for being notable under WP:GNG. There are multiple reliable sources that cover Hezbollah's involvement in drone smuggling as a connected activity, not just random events. For example, a Reuters report from 2023 links drone parts smuggling in Europe to Hezbollah's weapons buildup. Similarly, BBC coverage in 2024 discusses coordinated efforts across countries like Germany and the UK, framing it as part of Hezbollah's global logistics for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). These aren't isolated. The New York Times article ties incidents from 2020-2024 together, showing a pattern of smuggling drone components to support Hezbollah's military tech, which reliable experts call a "network." This isn't editor-made WP:SYNTH or WP:OR because the sources themselves connect the dots. The Washington Post piece explicitly describes it as "Hezbollah's drone smuggling operations," based on intelligence from multiple governments, not just allegations. Prosecutors' statements are backed by court documents and independent journalism, like in the Associated Press report on German arrests, where convictions followed investigations. This avoids WP:BLPCRIME issues since we use high-quality sources that report outcomes, not just charges, and focus on the network, not unsubstantiated claims about people. On sources, not all are unreliable. While some like Israel Hayom might be biased, the article also uses neutral ones like Reuters, BBC, and NYT, which have strong fact-checking. The Guardian's update in 2024 notes Iran International has improved on corroborated claims, especially with cross-verification from Western outlets. "This Is Beirut" is run by experienced journalists with ties to International Center for Journalists, giving it credibility for regional news. "Defense Mirror" aggregates but cites originals like Jane's Defence Weekly, a top WP:RS for military intel. Kataeb.org is primary, but used sparingly for statements, balanced by secondary sources. These points were partly addressed in the DYK nomination, where editors suggested improvements, not deletion. Merging to Hezbollah or Islamic terrorism in Europe would lose detail, as this topic has enough WP:SIGCOV for its own page without forking. The article can be cleaned up for neutrality, but it deserves to stay as a standalone topic with real-world coverage. 1111crossover (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iran. jolielover♥talk 12:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The main argument for deletion here is WP:SYNTH—the idea that editors are stitching together unrelated events—but that doesn't really hold up when you look at the coverage. We have major outlets like the BBC and The Times of Israel explicitly describing these arrests as part of a coordinated "network" or "ring" operating across Spain and Germany. When the reliable sources themselves are connecting the dots and treating this as a singular logistical operation, it's not synthesis for us to write about it that way. This subject easily passes WP:GNG because the dismantling of a transnational military procurement ring is receiving significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. We should keep this and focus on swapping out the lower-quality references for better ones. Jībanmṛta^message 16:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE: This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. None of the individual sources frame the acts as a ‘Drone smuggling network’. Also many sources are unreliable and biased. Some of the article could be salvaged and merged into the Hezbollah article. Dualpendel (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Confused a bit by this nomination. This network has received WP:SIGCOV in RS as an explicit entity for over a decade: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. RS treat this network as a real thing run by Hezbollah. Being "Adelson-funded" or WP:BIASED does not make a source non-reliable. This is not the venue for such debates, either. I think a better scope for the article is something like Hezbollah smuggling networks, simialar to Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels, for which there is ample monograph- and book-length coverage. There's a depressingly large amount of WP:SYNTH in this topic area, but this article isn't it. Longhornsg (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article should not exist as a standalone page for several reasons. First, it is extremely narrow and time sensitive, focusing on a handful of arrests and incidents that are likely to fade quickly from the news cycle. Wikipedia is not a news archive, and creating pages for short lived events is generally inappropriate. Second, the topic overlaps heavily with existing articles such as Hezbollah and Terrorism in Europe, so maintaining a separate page only fragments coverage and adds confusion. Third, the article lacks broader context, as it does not meaningfully situate these arrests within Hezbollah's wider activities or European security dynamics, leaving it as a context-less entry. Fourth, the level of detail devoted to individual cases risks giving WP:UNDUE weight to relatively minor events. And finally, the sources used are also, as mentioned by the nomination, extremely lacking. Any material of lasting value can be more appropriately merged into other broader and better sourced articles. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The reporting is over a period of several months. There are a lot of examples of articles that fail WP:NEVENT, but this is an WP:ORG and has the requisite WP:SIGCOV. If you think it lacks coverage of appropriate context, add it in. Longhornsg (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that the article meets WP:SIGCOV. The coverage is limited and fragmented, and it focuses on a small number of minor arrests over a short period, with no substantive coverage of a distinct Hezbollah European drone smuggling entity outside this context. I was also not aware that we already have the article Hezbollah armed strength, which specifically covers the WP:ORG's military and already includes this material at an appropriate length. That further reinforces my support for deletion here. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Longhornsg. BlookyNapsta (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly a CFORK of what we already have an entire page devoted to, and it's not those listed in the AfD case but Hezbollah armed strength, where we also already include the information on the arrests this entire page is built around, which is what it warrants per WP:DUE/WP:WEIGHT. If you do a search for "Hezbollah European drone smuggling network" and variations, the sole results you get are the few brief news reports on the charges and arrests that happened earlier this year. There is no substantive RS analyzing it as a really existing and proven thing, there is no further details aside from these arrests, there is absolutely nothing. That's why other editors are linking to pieces about Hezbollah and drones more generally, but that's not the subject of this page. Even if there had been a page made at a more general level of "Hezbollah and drones" that would not be worthy of a standalone page and belongs to the aforementioned page we already have specifically on the subject of Hezbollah's military. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Keep per all above. I find it ironic that the claim of bias for one of the sources is sourced to 972Mag. What is clear is that the article has SIGCOV and it's more extensive than a one or two sentence in the existing Hezbollah or Hezbollah-Israel War article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DoorDash Girl controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsolvable WP:BLPCRIME problems and does not pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and EVENTCRIT 4. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• (article creator here) Keep or if not kept Draftify so I can improve the article with new information and sources as they surface. I assume WP:BLPCRIME is linked because it is assumed Henderson is not a public figure. While she's not a celebrity, it's rather questionable whether she could be considered a low-profile individual. From the Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual essay: Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Henderson posted multiple videos after the first one went viral, accusing TikTok, DoorDash and the local police. She suggested she considered suing DoorDash. She was posting those videos knowing full well they would attract large numbers of views.
  

  [...] I've also gotten assaulted and the police are doing nothing to help me. So let me just shut up. You know, the video got taken down, nobody has to know what happened to me. No. I'm going to keep telling my story.

  — Olivia Henderson, [7]

  It appears she did want media attention.
  As for WP:EVENTCRIT 4, the situation was severe enough to cause DoorDash, not a small company, to issue a public statement. Over a week after the main story was reported Wired analyzed deepfakes and misinformation relating to the case.^[1] This seems to be more than "routine", but reasonable minds can differ.
  

— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a handful of social media videos does not make you a public figure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I think that's an unfair characterization. She posted multiple videos on the same topic and she did so after the initial video went viral. Indeed, she posted the original video for the purpose of bringing attention to the incident. I don't see how one could argue that she was not seek[ing] out media attention.

(I'm still unsure whether I think this event is notable enough for an article. I'm reviewing the sources and will !vote when I'm ready.)ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After reviewing the sources and reflection upon notability guidelines, I do believe that this event has enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, but I'm really not seeing how it might have any historical significance or even a kind of lasting impact that might cause a shift in culture. While it's a subject of much bickering, I don't even see how it's particularly controversial, as the vast majority of sources I found share a view (that the subject herself was in the wrong).

I understand that there are aspects of this event which are quite interesting, in that it raises questions pertaining to notions like rape culture, the patriarchy and feminism, and the fact that it inverts a narrative that has become widespread relatively recently (that of the woman victim of masculine sexual assault) into a narrative that aligns with those often pushed by anti-feminists. But those interesting aspects don't elevate this to something that I can imagine a high-school student researching in 30 years. Perhaps a college student, but even then, I would imagine that they'd be pursuing a graduate degree, to dig this deep. I don't see how having this article really improves the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even see how it's particularly controversial We likely have a blind spot:

• Wired: "her video accrued tens of millions of views, including some supportive and consoling responses to what she said she had endured on the job as a young woman."
• Daily Dot: "A DoorDash driver who claimed she faced sexual harassment during a delivery was recently arrested for recording and posting the evidence online, and reactions are mixed. [...] Folks online quickly debated her arrest. One commenter responded, “THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RECORD AND ACCESS THEIR EVIDENCE WTF DOORDASH.” [...] Meanwhile, posts on X showed a wide range of opinions. [...] @vhaerawwn argued that victims faced impossible standards [...] Several people expressed frustration at the broader system. [...] @Needle_of_Arya wrote: “This girl needs a top-notch attorney, because it is clear to most that she was set up by a serial flasher.” [...] Others, like @planetclarke, insisted the arrest reflected deeper issues. They tweeted, “They’re really trying to punish women for speaking out WITH PROOF!!!”" (Daily Dot also quotes comments from the "she guilty" side, I'm only quoting the supportive part to show it's controversial)
• The Express Tribune: [8] "Online reaction was divided, with some users supporting her concerns for driver safety and others arguing that recording inside a customer’s home breached clear delivery protocols."

Thank you for your well thought-out response. Reasonable minds can differ. Something "you can imagine a high-school student researching in 30 years" seems like a very high bar to me. Personally, I believe people will look back and reflect on this. Maybe not in 30 years, and not to write a paper about this event only. But for the next decade or so, possibly to cite as an example, to show how far we've come (or strayed..) since 2025. Or as a comparison in future cases of women posting nudes of men. Again, thank you, and only time will tell. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point wasn't that she's not getting any support, but look at the tone of those articles. (Except for the Wired one, which references this incident, but isn't about it). It would be quite easy to structure those articles to take Henderson's position and portray what's happening as oppression, but neither of those two sources about this actually do that.

Unfortunately, we live in a time in which one could quite literally (and disappointingly) make a social media post about how "Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, and maybe we should get rid of all the Jews, guys," and get a 'mixed reaction'.

To go into more detail, social media posts are invariably served via social media feed algorithms. Which means people who engage with content similar to a post's content are going to be the overwhelming majority of people who see it, even after it goes viral. Indeed, many people who might have opinions on the subject, but no particular draw to that topic, will be exposed to it and self-select out of the audience, because it's not the type of content they're looking for. And since that type of content isn't their usual fare, they won't be getting the numerous 'reaction vids' and 'hot takes' responding to it that might draw them back to it.

So the mere fact that she got a mixed reaction, rather than overwhelming support, shows that even people who are inclined to believe women when they make such claims weren't so sure. The group most disposed to being supportive of her is notably less supportive than we would expect.

(Yes, I'm aware that many rage-bait creators seek out 'oppo' posts to react to, but unless they're the reason a post goes viral, they rarely make an impact. Even when they are the reason a post goes viral, the tenor of reactions will tend to balance out over time.)

We likely have a blind spot: Afraid not. If you were examining the data that makes up my social media algos, you'd be forgiven for believing that I'm a blue-haired feminist trans woman. The original viral video, several of her followups and multiple responses from feminist creators were all over my TikTok FYP in mid-to-late October. I've been following this off-wiki since.

Thank you for your well thought-out response. Likewise. Don't think that me arguing means I'm not enjoying this. :)

Something "you can imagine a high-school student researching in 30 years" seems like a very high bar to me. I don't think so. Things I can imagine a high-school student researching in thirty years includes such diverse and niche topics as Lotus Flower Tower, Rustam Shah Mohmand and the Laser Kiwi flag (which my friend in NZ believes wholeheartedly should be the national flag and I support her in that). To hew a little closer to this topic, I could see a high-schooler researching the Slender Man stabbing, for example.

Personally, I believe people will look back and reflect on this. Maybe not in 30 years, and not to write a paper about this event only. But for the next decade or so, possibly to cite as an example, to show how far we've come (or strayed..) since 2025. Or as a comparison in future cases of women posting nudes of men. I disagree, but I wouldn't characterize that as an indefensible, or even an unreasonable view. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• After this AfD was started a few more sources reported on the case: Complex [9], The Mary Sue [10], Mothership.sg [11], Hip Hop Vibe [12] and WGOW (AM) [13]. More information about sources. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added [14] from Air Mail (magazine) and [15] from WP:THEMARYSUE as sources to the article.
    Also, if naming miss H. is believed to be an issue, I'd be willing to alter the article to refer to her as "a delivery driver". — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would actually appreciate that. I tend to align with the majority view here, but as she's not a public figure over anything but this case, I don't think naming her is really important, and it has definite negatives. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Yes, I know that I argued she's making herself a public figure above. I still don't think that needs us to name her. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I thought this was about the DD driver who sprayed food after dropping it off, so that suggests this isnt distinctly notable. This seems like a minor event without sustained coverage or notability. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia generally doesn't have articles on ephermeral controversies like this (e.g. the Coldplay kisscam which recently got deleted). No evidence that the controversy will have a WP:LASTING effect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is the definition of WP:NOTNEWS, not to mention a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. A bunch of churnalism about the Internet controversy du jour does not meet WP:DEPTH. Longhornsg (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I !voted to delete, but I would be okay with draftifying this article for a year or two, until we know whether or not this incident will have any lasting effect. Alexis raised some good points at my talk page about this, and while my mind wasn't changed, I think there's an argument that this might become more notable with time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual offences in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is comprised of lists of uncontextualised references to offenses taken from the relevant statutes, but with one section devoted to rape that contains content semi-duplicated by Rape in English law. It appears from the Talk page that Rape in English law was created becuase the creator of the original page opposed suggested improvements. Sexual offences in the United Kingdom now duplicates the more informative and better structured Rape in English law cf. WP:DUPLICATE gilgongo (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and United Kingdom. gilgongo (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per criteria 2a of Wikipedia:Speedy keep on grounds that this nomination is obviously frivolous and vexatious and was therefore unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism and disruption. This topic satisfies WP:GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. There are a massive number of entire books, entire book chapters and entire periodical articles about this subject. Many of these are already cited in the article. The notability of the topic is so obvious that it could not plausibly have been nominated in good faith. The article contains no lists. The content of the article is entirely contextualised. Even if more context was needed, it would be very easy to simply add more context, therefore WP:ATD precludes deletion on that grounds: "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page". In 2010, Rape in English law was split from a previous version of this article on grounds of GNG and that it was imminently about to become WP:TOOBIG, not because of anything that happened in a talk page discussion in 2023: The article Rape in English law was created long before that talk page discussion and has nothing to do with that discussion. Further, the creator of Sexual offences in the United Kingdom (Alan Liefting) did not participate in that talk page discussion, let alone oppose suggested improvements during it; and the creator of Rape in English law, and most of the content now included in Sexual offences in the United Kingdom, did not oppose suggested improvements either, but instead implemented extensive improvements within 24 hours of the start of that discussion. Sexual offences in the United Kingdom does not duplicate Rape in English law, and is any event supposed to contain a summary of that and other articles per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Deletion of this article might violate WP:CWW as material from this article has been copied to other articles. (Since some of the material in this article was split from Rape, I am not sure who wrote all of the original version of this article). The nominator is a WP:SLEEPER account with almost no edits from 2007 to 2024 and then a massive sudden spike in edits in the last two months; and the nominator has made systematically false statements in this AfD. And, having regard to all these facts, I am satisfied this nomination was made for the purpose of vandalism and disruption within the meaning of the speedy keep guideline. James500 (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My nomination was made in good faith for the reasons stated, but I apologise for any misunderstanding of the talk page conversation I refer to. The reason for the spike in my Wikipedia activity is due to my recent retirement. My nomination otherwise still stands. gilgongo (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How does your nomination otherwise stand? You have not cited any policy or guideline that authorises the deletion of this article, or made any attempt to answer the citation of WP:GNG, WP:ATD, WP:CWW or WP:SUMMARYSTYLE above. James500 (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I see that you have responded to my preceding comment by amending your nomination to cite WP:DUPLICATE, claiming that the article duplicates Rape in English law. There are two problems with that argument: (1) The two articles do not have "exactly the same subject, with the same scope" and they are not redundant either. The vast majority of sexual offences are not rape; UK law, Scots law and Northern Ireland law are not English law; and roughly 75% of the present content of the article has nothing to do with rape, but is instead about other offences. (2) WP:DUPLICATE is part of Wikipedia:Merging. It is a valid argument for merger, but is not a valid argument for deletion. AfD is not the correct venue for proposing mergers, and merger does not require an AfD. And an AfD that only proposes merger falls under criteria 1 of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. James500 (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think if I came across this article I would consider either nominating it for deletion, merge, redirect or nuking it and starting again. It's badly structured, three quarters of the sections are lists written out as prose and it doesn't include what I'd expect to see given its title, such as landmark cases, statistics or history. So at this stage I certainly don't think this article meets the criteria for a speedy keep as I don't think the nominator was vexatious, but I am still undecided as the best solution. Orange sticker (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I can see, deleting the page is impossible due to the requirements of WP:CWW, and those requirements are not something we can WP:IAR. As far as I can see, the minimum we would have to do is a history merge.

  Claiming that the article is badly structured, that the prose is poor, or that the article doesn't include what you'd expect, is basically saying that the article is WP:UGLY. Now, WP:UGLY is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: That argument is not compatible with the deletion policy, which sets out the valid grounds for deletion. If you don't like the article because doesn't include what you'd expect, then all you have to do is expand the article by adding what you'd expect it to include. If you don't like the article because it doesn't include landmark cases, statistics or history, then all you have to do is add landmark cases, statistics and history to the article. If you think the prose is poor, all you have to do is rewrite the prose. If you think the article is badly structured, all you have to do is change the structure to whatever you want the structure to be. WP:ATD says that we don't delete articles because they need to be rewritten, and that AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. If we deleted every article that was as "bad" as this one, we have to delete more than half the articles on the project, because most of them are a lot worse.

  That said, I am not entirely sure why you think the article is "badly structured" when it follows a structure similar to that used by more or less every book on the subject.

  Anyway, while attempting to use deletion as an alternative to improving an article is a frivolous and disruptive WP:POINT misuse of the AfD process, criteria 2 of WP:SK seems to now be inapplicable because another editor has opposed it. Therefore I am moving to keep on grounds that the topic is notable for satisfying WP:GNG, the article does not have any problems that cannot be fixed by expanding it, and possibly by rewriting parts of it, and such an expansion or rewrite would be required by WP:ATD. James500 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Bearing in mind that an article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field, it would help if you could explain the utility of the page. It contains lists of unexplained terms with hatnotes to main articles (which, incidentally, are also mostly unexplained, but that's a separate issue). So for example, if a reader is curious about the offense of inducement, they are presented with a citation from a statute, but are none the wiser. And why does it have a deftiniton of rape (which is simply one offense) that overlaps with Rape in English law, yet does not link to that as a main article? gilgongo (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I should not explain the utility of the page, because WP:USELESS is one of the arguments to avoid. As that essay points out, if a topic is notable, then an article on the topic is considered useful because the topic is notable. WP:ATD says that if you don't like the fact that something in an article is not explained, then you edit the article to add the explanation, not delete the article: That is policy. How can Rape in English law be the main article for Scotland and Northern Ireland? And why can't you add the link yourself like this? Why do you sealioningly ask me to do it for you? James500 (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete while the subject is notable, it is already adequately covered in other articles (mainly Sexual_assault#United_Kingdom, Prostitution_in_the_United_Kingdom, Laws_regarding_rape#United_Kingdom and various topics in Sex_and_the_law), none of the content needs to be merged and a redirect is not appropriate as there is no single suitable target page. For the same reasons I also think Sexual offences in English law,Sexual offences in Scots law and Sexual offences in Northern Ireland law can be deleted. In general, "sexual offences" is too broad a topic for anything other than a list, and a list of sexual offences in the United Kingdom would be a redundant fork. These pages are not quite lists (see the number of red links) and not quite articles. Orange sticker (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This page is not a redundant fork. A list of sexual offences in the UK, or its constituent countries, would not be a redundant fork either. WP:REDUNDANTFORK refers to "two articles about the exact same thing, or any two pages of the same type covering the same thing as each other". If there was an article on something like Sex crimes in the UK then this article would be a redundant fork: but no such articles exists. Likewise, the three national articles are not redundant forks of something like Sex crimes in the law of Scotland, because no such fork exists. WP:REDUNDANTFORK does not apply simply because there is an overlap between two pages. It especially doesn't apply when the overlap between two pages is significantly less than 50%, and especially not to an overlap only with small portions of numerous other pages. Nor is an article a fork simply because it is a list.

  As far as I can see, the subject is not adequately covered in the other articles, as they are missing most of the offences under UK law, and they are missing most of the information in this article and the three national articles. Frankly, some of the content of some of the articles you have listed is worse than this one and the three national articles. It is often unreferenced and written in unclear language. If this article and the three national articles were broken up, there is content that would need to be merged to quite a lot of places, since it is only found in those four articles. In any event, if there are no articles on UK law, it will be impossible for a reader to navigate to the offences that exist under UK law, because that country has a different set of offences to other countries.

  There does not need to be "single suitable target page" for a redirect, in order to have a redirect. If there is more than one "suitable target page" we will link to the primary topic (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT). If there is no primary topic, we will create a disambiguation page. Since Sexual offences presently redirects to Sex and the law, these pages could redirect there as well. (This is hypothetical since the topic is notable and should have an article).

  "Sexual offences" is not too broad a topic for anything other than a list. The offences have, in particular, common features (eg consent) and a common history (eg the law was consolidated in the 1956 Act which was replaced by the 2003 Act, and all the politics surrounding each set of changes) which would have to be written in a form that is not a list of offences. Even if sexual offences was too broad a topic for anything other than a list, that is still not grounds for deletion: Lists are not banned on Wikipedia. A list of sexual offences in the UK, or its constituent jurisdictions would satisfy WP:LISTN, and therefore such a list is notable and should exist. The fact that a list contains red links does not stop it from being a list, or justify deleting a notable list, especially when we know the red links are going to turn blue because they are notable. As far as I can see there is no policy or guideline forbidding a page that is "not quite a list and not quite an article". Even if pages were required to be either "pure list" or "pure article", that should still not result in deletion: WP:ATD would require the page to be rewritten so that it becomes "pure list" or "pure article". James500 (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The main question is, what is the encylopedic value of these pages to the reader? We would not create a page listing the fact that there are several types of cog wheel, various pneumatic cables, bolts of numerous species, and several spring assemblies in tractors, and the same for cars and motorbikes, for example, without attempting to explain anything about those. Is your intention that the articles @Orange sticker refers to should be lists of things that require their own pages? gilgongo (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No that is not the main question, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is one of the arguments to avoid. James500 (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a much better article than the Rape in English law, and English law doesn't include Scots or Northern Irish law, so there's no way it could serve as a replacement for this one. Rape is also narrower than "sexual offences". As for the argument that it could be better covered in a host of other articles, that's sort of the problem with a lot of knowledge on Wikipedia - we're missing an awful lot of "middle" articles that lie between the big overviews and the smaller, more granular stuff. This fits perfectly with WP:SUMMARY. Guettarda (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic obviously passes WP:GNG. As the article creator said, it is intended to be a summary article for the UK. He also wrote more extensive articles on Rape in English, Scottish, and Northern Irish law, deliberately choosing this article structure. Additionally, the topic of the article, in principle, is not limited to laws and should cover other aspects of sexual offenses, which it does by including a graph with statistics. I also think that sexual offenses is a broad enough topic to be covered for each country separately, and more in depth than in broad articles such as Sexual assault and Laws regarding rape. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I support deletion. Even if the subject is generally notable I do not think this article works as an encyclopedia article as it is. It reads mostly like a list of offences, with very little explanation, and the reader is often sent to other pages without being told clearly why these offences are grouped together. The material is already covered better in other pages. Ismeiri (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DETCON says consensus "is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" (emphasis added). Accordingly, arguments in deletion discussions should be based on policies and guidelines. And the arguments in the preceding !vote don't seem to be based on any policy or guideline at all. Reading like a list is not grounds for deletion under the deletion policy, and even if it was, the policy WP:ATD would apply anyway, and would require you to rewrite the page so that it doesn't read like one. The material is self-explanatory, inasmuch as its meaning should be obvious to anyone who understands English. If our readers can speak English, they should know, for example, what the word "prostitution" means. The material therefore adequately explains itself and does not need further explanation. Even if it did need further explanation, the policy WP:ATD requires that you add the explanation instead of deleting the page. The reader is not "sent" to other pages at all, let alone often sent to other pages. Even if the reader was sent to other pages, there there wouldn't be anything wrong with that. And even if there was something wrong with the links in the page, WP:ATD would require you to remove them instead of deleting the page. It is entirely obvious why these offences are grouped togther: They are offences under the sexual offences Acts, and they are classified as sexual offences by legislation and law reports, by treatises and other law books, and by law journal articles. If, for example, an offence relates to prostitution and is created by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, why would you need the article to explain why it is "sexual"? I think our readers know that prostitution is sexual, and that a statute called "The Sexual Offences Act 2003" is going to be about sexual offences. The arrangement of the material within the article follows the conventional categories created by legislation and recognised by sources such as treatises. For example, you would expect a prostitution offence to be grouped with the other prostitution offences, and not included in the section of the article on sexual assault. The material is not covered better in other pages, and much of it is not covered at all. James500 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTSCANDAL - Not sure why Wikipedia should have an article that details sexual offences in threir areas of the UK. In fact I don't see why specific geographic area of the world would have an article about its own sexual offenses. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You know perfectly well that WP:NOTSCANDAL does not apply. A description of the laws created by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 and related legislation is not "something heard through the grapevine" or "gossiping" or "about living people" or "libellous" or "infringing someone's right to privacy" or "attacking the reputation of another person" within the meaning of WP:NOTSCANDAL. You know perfectly well that the reason Wikipedia has an article on this topic is because it satisfies WP:GNG due to books like Rook and Ward on Sexual Offences, Card, Gillespie and Hirst on Sexual Offences, Richardson and Clark on Sexual Offences and all the other books about the UK law of sexual offences, that are specifically about the UK and exclude the laws of other countries, because the laws of other countries are different to the UK and irrelevant to UK law. James500 (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course WP:GNG applies, but I did not nominate this aticle for deletion on grounds of notability. Please do not deflect the discussion. The central issue is that it duplicates and does not support the other articles mentioned. If you think it does, then you need to explain how the reader benefits from reading it (or might do if suitably expanded). gilgongo (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I know you didn't claim the topic is non-notable, but Maile66 did claim that it fails GNG. James500 (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree that WP:NOTSCANDAL does not apply here. There are already articles that describe the laws covered by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 and Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 so I don't see the need for a standalone article called Sexual offences in the United Kingdom, I still think it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Orange sticker (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I accept that the overlap between the UK article, and the articles on the three jurisdictions (the single jurisdiction of English and Wales, and the two jurisdictions of Scotland and Northern Ireland) is the most convincing argument presented against this particular article. I accept that you could make a case for completely splitting the UK article into articles on its three component jurisdictions, though I'm not sure certain what the page names of those articles should be. I accept that the information in this article does seem to be specific to one of those three jurisdictions, rather than being about the UK as a whole. I would not personally have created an article about the UK as a whole, as Alan Liefting did. I would have created separate articles for the three jurisdictions, and possibly an overview article for Europe, eg [16] [17] [18], rather than the UK. I did not mention this because, up to now, no-one else had advanced this line of reasoning. James500 (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I accept that you could make a case for completely splitting the UK article into articles on its three component jurisdictions to be clear I'm not suggesting this and it doesn't seem any one else is either, so I'm not sure what you're accepting here. As I've said repeatedly, this topic is already adequately covered on several other articles. Orange sticker (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sorry if I misunderstood you. So, to clarify, I accept that it might be possible for this topic to be adequately covered in an article on England and Wales, another article on Scotland, and a third article on Northern Ireland. But it isn't adequately covered in such articles yet. James500 (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But you created three separate articles, Sexual offences in English law, Sexual offences in Northern Ireland law, and Sexual offences in Scots law. So, according to you, the UK article is redundant? Kelob2678 (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @User:Kelob2678: Those three articles only cover law. They prima facie don't necessarily cover criminology, crime statistics, sociology, politics etc. They also don't presently include the summaries in Sexual offences in the United Kingdom#England and Wales etc. What I meant was that, in theory, you could have separate articles on Sexual offences in England and Wales, Sexual offences in Scotland and Sexual offences in Northern Ireland. I was under the impression that Orange sticker was proposing some kind of reorganization along those lines, but since it appears I misunderstood him, and nobody else wants to perform that kind of split (and presumably or possibly re-merger of the law articles into Sexual offences in England and Wales etc), I don't think it matters. James500 (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  True, but the article in its current state mostly focuses on the law and doesn't properly cover criminology, crime statistics, sociology, politics, effectively functioning as if its title is Sexual offences in the United Kingdom law. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Lunz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:CRIMINAL, his crimes were only covered by local newspapers and are certianly not "historic". Dozens of low-profile criminals appear on local newspapers for murder every day, which is why notability standards for criminals is higher than GNG. A repeat offender appearing on the local news twice for WP:ROUTINE crimes is WP:ROTM ("random Florida man got arrested a second time in our county!") and scarcely does anything to help one achieve notability. V. S. Video (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, United States of America, and Florida. V. S. Video (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is covered by extensive reliable and verifiable sources that cover the subject in depth. I'm no sure where our nominator comes from, but describing a serial killer as a run-of-the-mill ("random Florida man got arrested a second time in our county!") petty criminal appears to be misleading, at best, and hardly justifies deletion. Alansohn (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources say he is a serial killer, they only say that he described himself as such [19][20]. Claiming to be something that could make someone notable and actually being such thing is quite different. V. S. Video (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is very well written there is bunch of infoe and sources for important sections as well, its fine to stay.~2025-38610-14 (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes GNG and has high-quality sources. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" opinions so far do not address the argument that the sources are routine crime coverage (no opinion on that myself).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NCRIMINAL. I searched for his name on newspapers.com, and the only coverage outside of Florida was from Asheville, North Carolina. The only coverage after 2006 consisted of news reports in Florida and Asheville regarding his suicide in 2009. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - why was this article nominated for deletion. Well written, good sourcing that are third party and extensive. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Three victims, no real proof of the serial killer claim. Just appears to be a criminal that was put in jail and the media has moved on. Was almost 20 yrs ago now, with no coverage found much after the events happened, I don't lasting notability, or even much for when he was still alive. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comes up in a few recent podcasts, which we don't consider RS. Just not much for sourcing to show notability, beyond news reporting as it happened. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• :: Just pointing out that notable and extensive coverage does not become less notable because X number of years has passed by.BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Samaritan's Purse Cessna 208 hijacking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I've added in sources I've been able to find, per WP:BEFORE. Unfortunately, aside from the AP article, there is very little coverage, with most of the sources having questionable reliability. A redirect to Samaritan's Purse would be appropriate here. 11WB (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Sudan. 11WB (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak keep. Covered internationally and aircraft hijackings certainly do not occur often. There have only been three this year, and one was a minor incident. Although no casualties were reported an aircraft hijacking and even an attempt at it, is pretty notable. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Samaritan's Purse - I unfortunately have to agree. It appears this has received a lot less coverage than I expected. - ZLEA ^TǀC 05:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  yes i know theres limited information but its a hijacking. We have some strong information for an article. Stay Grffffff (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding more info Grffffff (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also i think information comes out slowly due to the war so we should wait Grffffff (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  South Sudan isn't at war. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There at war. Grffffff (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Their* Grffffff (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sudan is in a civil war, not South Sudan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They're at war* Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I'm aware, South Sudan has not been involved in any wars since the South Sudanese Civil War ended in 2020. - ZLEA ^TǀC 22:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this to me? I'm aware South Sudan isn't at war, I was just correct his grammar. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just clarifying, in case anyone is still mistaking Sudan for South Sudan. - ZLEA ^TǀC 00:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEVENT: this failed hijacking attempt has seen only minimal WP:ROUTINE coverage and falls under WP:EVENTCRIT#4: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes [...] are usually not notable. The article was clearly created WP:TOOSOON, but I don't think the counter-argument of WP:TOOSOONDEL applies here. In the unlikely event that continued coverage does emerge, the article can always be recreated per WP:USUAL. The event is currently included in List of aircraft hijackings § 2020s, which would thus be a possible redirect target as an WP:ATD, but I'm not convinced that it is WP:DUE there, let alone in the Samaritan's Purse article. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has received a large amount of coverage for a hijacking incident in South Sudan. It also involved an Christian humanitarian organisation which is why christian sources are reporting on this. There is even a investigation starting on this article. Hijackings are usually notable. It has received a large amount of attention outside of Africa. There is still coverage 2 days after the hijacking. It got a lot of attention from sources around the world. I don't get how @ZLEA is claiming there was not much coverage? Hijackings are definitely not routine or run of the mill.

Zaptain United (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been plenty of WP:ROUTINE news coverage, sure, as would be expected for any aircraft incident – but I don't see any WP:INDEPTH analysis. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the argument the nominator was making was that there wasn't that much coverage which I was trying to disprove Zaptain United (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERCITE#Reprints. 11WB (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what Blox said, its a hijacking, sure not notable but doesnt happen a lot. Grffffff (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not notable, then it's not notable. The frequency of a specific type of event does not itself determine the notability of individual events. - ZLEA ^TǀC 18:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep for now. Article was nominated after 2 (maybe 3) days after the incident. Within that span, it has received significant coverage internationally. Enough time hasn't passed to deny claim to notability. Let's wait at least for three months to see what kind of coverage it receives. Wikipedia:Too soon to delete —usernamekiran (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zaptain United. Many sources about the hijacking, that were not seen by the nominator. ~2025-31396-09 (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did see them. Most of them are just the same Associated Press article on different news aggregator sites. 11WB (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Destinyokhiria 💬 13:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:TSTD. Aside from the AP article, there is the piece from Sudans Post, which should be enough to meet WP:BASIC while we wait to see if the article gains WP:SUSTAINED coverage.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. All sources simply narrate the event without providing anything beyond that. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. I also oppose a redirect to Samaritan's Purse since this appears to be an unrelated one-off incident when put into the organization's historical context. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner ([[User

talk:Svartner|talk]]) 15:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Redirect Cessna Oftenly crashes, which was not notable. I know hijackings don't always happen but this has small coverage, compare to Tropic Air Flight 711 and this was a small incident that occurs due to hijacking but a small plane incident, this doesn't have much information to meet WP:BASIC. Jahndah (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]