Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Shapiro (American criminal)

Harry Shapiro (American criminal)

This is WP:NN and fails both WP:BIO and WP:NPOV. This article is about someone who commited a stupid hoax and for that the article traces a "guilt by association" for all manner of "lurking" Orthodox Jews whom it casts as "extremists" and "terrorists" (see "references" and "categories"). This is an article about a pathetic non-notable sicko, and there are millions of such people from all sectors of society who will certainly not be getting articles about themselves on Wikipedia (just because they were in the morning police blotter, or got a mention in a periodical, or plea-bargained with a judge over some petty crime or something similar.) Is this guy really an "American criminal" as the article's title will not let us forget? Whoever thinks so, lacks a sense of proportion and has more of an interest in fanning hysteria than in conveying NPOV information. This is not encyclopedic, and if anything it can become a paragraph somewhere, as in delusions of grandeur maybe. IZAK 22:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons, IZAK 22:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable criminal with ample references, including a story in the New York Times. --Eastmain 23:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is he "notable" compared to the millions of others who also get mentioned in the papers but don't get Wikipedia articles? IZAK 07:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reliable sources, and the write-up in The New York Times establishes notability. It might be a good idea to move to something that didn't include the word "criminal" in the title, though. *** Crotalus *** 00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The attempted assassination of a former Israeli Prime Minister is a bit more then a "petty crime" even if it was a hoax. He has three independent, non-trivial and reliable sources as per WP:BIO and an POV issues require revising not criteria for deletion. As per naming convention, I'd suggest renaming the article to either Harry Shapiro (criminal) or Harry Shapiro (hoaxster). MadMax. 03:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since Shapiro was a native of Jacksonville, and the crime was committed there , the neutral reference is Harry Shapiro (Jacksonville, Florida), and I'll change it to that when the AfD is closed with, probably a Keep. If a date of birth is available we could use it instead, but I do not see it in the references. It is perhaps worth noting in the article the partisan nature of the Washington Report, the main source of information used for this article. DGG 06:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are we saying that being written up in a major daily for whatever serious (a tube of gunpowder seems a bit more than a hoax to me) crime establishes notability? With about 4000 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the US alone (see Crime in the United States) times 300,000,000 people yields 12,000,000 violent crimes per year in the US alone. Not all perpetrators are caught, and many probably have multiple victims, but a goodly number are caught – 2,000,000 people are already incarcerated in the US alone(United_States_prison_population#Population_statistics) A goodly % of the people who are convicted of these crimes (and get incarcerated) will have their stories in some daily, probably once when they're arrested and again after the verdict, plea bargain, or sentence. If that equals notability, we'll have no shortage of bios to write: commit a crime, get a WP article. Of course, by the definition of serious crime convicts who get written up once or twice makes one notable, WP will stand for Wikipoliceblotter. Carlossuarez46 06:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For mundane everyday crimes or memorial articles, your points are correct. However, this was certainly a high profile crime (and given the circumstances a possible international incident). The event (or hoax) itself would certainly be notable, even if the arguement of the subject's non notability was correct. MadMax 09:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't have a strong opinion on whether the article is kept or not, but those who are arguing "keep" based on coverage it receives begin trodding down the slippery slope. The "international incident" aspect of this takes it one level off the mundane, as does the notability of the intended victim, so if I would probably agree "keep". But note in some places (Japan most particularly, but Europe too), the murder of their nationals in the US gets a high degree of press regardless of the previous non-notability of both criminal and victim; one could easily get <pick a number> citations to those crimes, despite the fact tha they are not that different from what unfortunately by US (at least by big city US) standards is an all too regular happening. Carlossuarez46 17:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- an odd case such as this one establishes notability. Other similar people have Wikipedia articles, most notably Dan Burros, Davis Wolfgang Hawke, Leo Felton, etc. --Wassermann 11:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasserman: What is "odd" is how on Earth is Harry Shapiro similar to all these neo-Nazis you cite? IZAK 07:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MadMax, this criminal does meet Wikipedia standard of biographical notability, since it may involve an international assassination. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 16:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above, but caveat this is not a routine case. Also, does this guy have a middle name so we can rename the article to Harry Middle Shapiro or is his given name perhaps Harold that we can rename the article to Harold Shapiro, with appropriate redirects. Article names with "criminal" in them just strike me as wrong somehow. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obvious notability as per press coverage and several comments above. If possible, find a way to move as per Carlossuarez46's comments above. DES ^(talk) 16:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fellow about whom the article was written served his time for the crime, and should no longer be called "American Criminal." Classifying him as a criminal is kind of against what the penal system is designed for - rehabilitation. Nobody was hurt in his hoax, and obviously the crime was a mistake. Let the guy move on from his ten years of prison, and let's not call him "Criminal." Still this was somewhat of a historical act though, as no doubt it could be included as part of the biography of Shimon Peres, and this guy would be a footnote to Peres' life in politics.