Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime

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:

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.
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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Crime[edit]

Cyber Crime Break[edit]

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

A draft was declined multiple times, but the author created it to the main space to bypass AfC reviewing. I also declined the draft earlier. Based on my review, I can't find any sources with significant coverage of the subject just passing mentions and promotions. The organization was just created, and the article seems to exist solely to promote or publicize the organization. I don't think the article meets WP:GNG , WP:ORG, or any other notability criteria that would justify keeping it. Draftification is not a good idea since the author has bypassed the AfC process by moving the article to the main space despite multiple declines by several reviewers. GrabUp - Talk 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, obvs, although I expect this'll be speedied soon enough. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, latest self-marketing attempt by wannabe "hacker" and serial sockpuppet. Zero coverage in reliable sources, just the news-skinned blogs that he always sources his articles with. Best to keep this AFD open though, to allow for a quick G4 next time he creates it. Wikishovel (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article seems to focus on promoting rather than providing neutral information from reliable sources. Deletion seems reasonable. Waqar💬 17:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page made for WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This company was founded earlier this year??? And the support is in local and non-English sources??? There doesn't seem to be notability of any kind. Ira Leviton (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG, even WP:BASIC. Youknow? (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024 Massachusetts stabbings[edit]

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

I think the creation of this page may have jumped the gun a bit. There are possible issues with WP:SUSPECT and outside of the area it occurred, coverage seems limited (in a brief search just now all of the coverage I've found was already a month old, back to the week the event took place, and nothing since).

I would also be in favor of this going back to the drafts until further information is released. Lindsey40186 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Crime, Events, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tragic, but doesn't seem to meet NEVENT, as there doesn't seem to be continued coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. may have jumped the gun a bit describes 95% of current events articles that are created. Only a brief burst of news coverage, and Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to be enough lasting significance for NEVENT. will also drop a pet essay, WP:LASTINGCRIME. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While this is certainly sad, the coverage seems limited and short-lived. Wikipedia focuses on topics with enduring significance, and this doesn't appear to meet that criteria. Waqar💬 17:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt Hardy[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards of WP:CRIME GuyBanks (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, History, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find pictures of this person and newspapers describing his trial and hanging from the time... I don't see much notability as there has been no discussion about this person since. Lack of sourcing other than news reports of the event don't help. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly leaning towards Delete. As the person who updated this article (as it was only one sentence before my update), I don't want to take a strong opinion either way; I just want to contribute my two cents and any helpful background I know.

Checking the notability standards, the word "Generally" ("Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role") seems to offer quite a bit of leeway in terms of what can be included. There are quite a few crime articles throughout Wikipedia that I would say cover crimes/criminals that are even less historically significant than Hurt Hardy, yet those articles have not been questioned.

However, the article is an orphan, and I legitimately cannot think of a single article where it would be appropriate to link to Hurt Hardy. (The only one I might consider would be Rainey Bethea, as the ACTUAL final public execution in the U.S., because there could possibly be a mention on his page that Hurt Hardy's execution is sometimes erroneously given that title despite the fact that it isn't true. Even then, I really don't think Hurt Hardy is notable enough to warrant that.)

I did find one modern source discussing Hurt Hardy - https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article248407885.html (published January 11, 2021) – but one article isn't evidence of sustained coverage. Also, the article only briefly mentions him, and his mention is factually incorrect in several ways. Given the contextual text around that brief mention of Hurt Hardy, the article seems to be implying that Hardy was black, and there may have been an extrajudicial aspect to his public execution; however, Hardy was white, and his hanging was legal and carried out in private.

The relevant text is quoted here: "America’s history of public displays of racially-motivated mob violence is foundational going back to slavery, and public executions as a means of punishment happened well into the 1930s. One of the last public executions in the U.S. was on Missouri soil — the hanging of Hurt Hardy Jr. in 1937. Black people’s public hangings did not involve due process and were viewed as celebratory spectacles attended by thousands of white people, including public officials. People would advertise these “events,” sell food, print postcards of mutilated Black lynching victims, and take pieces of the victims’ bodies and clothing as souvenirs. When looking geographically at Missouri’s lynchings, we see that counties with historic racial terror lynchings are more likely to seek death sentences today."

I also found a 1947 magazine article discussing the murder he committed and his execution, but it is very sensationalized and reads like a detective magazine, and those are notorious for embellishing facts. Afddiary (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio parade shooting[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. Does not meet notability:events. BTW the lead is the main article and the whole lead is copyvio. I didn't zap it because then there would be no article. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. but clean up the copyvios. This is part of Category:Mass shootings in Texas. In and of itself, a sub of Category:Mass shootings in the United States. And on and on it goes. Perhaps they're all riddled with copyvios - or not. How do we say one is more notable than another one? — Maile (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events) to answer that question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of figured you were. Let's see what others say. Whatever works for all, is OK with me. — Maile (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to strong keep, With the new sourced background on the killer, I am convinced this article should be kept. — Maile (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of ways to misconstrue WP:N. "We can't know whether anything's notable, but it's in a category" might be the most wild one I've ever seen. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources found by PARAKANYAA demonstrate significant retrospective coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has SIGCOV in many books published decades after the event occurred. See:

Covered for several pages in the 2012 book The Anatomy of Motive, published by Simon & Schuster
Discussed for a page in Fatal Moments: The Tragedy of the Accidental Killer
Discussed a non-insignificant amount (idk how many pages) in They Shoot to Kill A Psycho-survey of Criminal Sniping
Discussed in the book Old Riot, New Ranger for at least 1+ full page.

This wasn't a particularly exhaustive search and was only books in Google Books so there's likely more.

I volunteer to add them if the article is kept. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made it less terrible. Could have done more but this is about as much work as I'm willing to do on an article that might get deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive Thank you for doing this. You've really added some decent context and sourcing to this article, I'm now convinced this should be KEEP. Your editing has shed light on the overall mental picture of the perpetrator.. — Maile (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also might add that the Texas archives final standoff video is pretty impressive in and of itself. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the extensive work done on the article since the nomination, IMO it has transitioned to one that should be kept on GNG grounds. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Parakanyaa, GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Internet challenges#Crime. Owen× ☎ 16:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallon smashing[edit]

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

While this probably seemed like an interesting topic at the time, it seems to explicitly fail WP:SUSTAINED (cf. also WP:10YT) as the coverage happened in 2013 with very little after that. Therefore, in hindsight the fad seems short-lived and confined to that time period with little impact (WP:IMPACT) beyond that. An alternative way to proceed could be a broader article about criminal "challenges/pranks" directed against grocery stores/food places, as gallon smashing seems closely related to ice cream licking [1] etc. Geschichte (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Crime, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already has a well-sourced entry at List of internet challenges, which goes into more than enough detail. All sources cited (and all sources I can find outside social media) are from 2013, making this a textbook failure of WP:10YT. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: page creator). I take the opposite position as above. I think there's sufficient secondary coverage about this trend and the page is an appropriate fork from List of Internet challenges. The list merely defines "gallon smashing" without providing any additional context about the trend's history or impact. I'd prefer to see this entry expanded, not merged or deleted. I've added additional in-depth coverage by Bloomberg News, ABC News, CBS News, etc, and I've shared more refs on the talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the trend's history or impact". What impact? Geschichte (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Charges filed, arrests, injuries, etc. Many trends don't result in these things. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of internet challenges. I looked at the titles of the sources and thought that an Internet challenge still getting media coverage eleven years after the fact might indeed merit its own article, but then I checked the sources. The articles listed as being from 2024 are actually from the mid-teens, merely archived in 2024. Possible mislead but also possible NBD. Given that, the entry in "List of Internet challenges" seems sufficient to me. Would reconsider if there is in fact analysis of this challenge from 2020 or later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Swat lynching incident[edit]

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

Horrible and highly condemnable incident but fails NEVENT. WP is not newspaper. Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the content into List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan to ensure that editors' efforts are not wasted. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan, per @Saqib's comment. Incident isn't WP:N enough to warrant an article. —Mjks28 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. I mean it was already so in theory it can be redirected but, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as per the above recomendation I do agree with the nominator's concern.223.123.10.196 (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - There is a continued coverage about the incident. see. Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) — Mfarazbaig (talk · contribs) is a confirmed [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{2}}}|sock puppet]] of [{{canonicalurl:User:{{{2}}}}} {{{2}}}] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]). [reply]
- Mfarazbaig, OK but WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE also states coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge If the continued coverage is in some way transformative, as with Murder of Ahmaud Arbery, then a separate article might be merited. Is there a connection between this incident and larger social forces in Pakistan? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Larson[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Press Your Luck scandal. Per ~~WP:BLP1E~~WP:BIO1E there should not be two separate articles. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as all of the reliable sources and verifiable content at Michael Larson has already been incorporated into Press Your Luck scandal. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep BLP1E does not apply. He is not alive. And the article has substantial information about him beyond his winning strategy. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An additional comment: Since Jax 0677 has decided in a somewhat idiosyncratic way to express skepticism about the above (see edit history of this page), I'll note that the article has a whole section titled "Later life, death, and legacy." JoshuaZ (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC) Changing opinion to redirect. Fourthords's comments below are convincing. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the nominator meant WP:BIO1E, which does apply. Also, all of this article's verifiable content (including the 11% not stemming from the PYL event) is already to be found at the article about the overall event—Press Your Luck scandal. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Crime, Games, Florida, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Press Your Luck scandal, if only because there's little left to merge. The history may be useful for attribution purposes, though, and keeping the history around is useful for tracking how we wrote about this subject years in the past. As for Larson's article, it's now redundant to the scandal article. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I mean, it was already merged in practice, but still. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I am OK with a merge or redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whatever is done here, please remember to move Michael Larson (disambiguation) to the title, Michael Larson, when this is all over. BD2412 T 16:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Michael Larson would continue to be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, unless you want to open an RFD. 162 etc. (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge and redirect Press Your Luck scandal to Michael Larson. (This concern is slightly lessened if the article moves from its current POV title, but that's being argued in a RM currently, and I'd still prefer the reverse merge.) It doesn't make much sense to have two separate articles, yes, but this is the more relevant article and the better title. This is not a BIO1E case, this was actually the more notable article if only one is kept - see arguments in the earlier RM discussion. Many sources discuss the topic simply by Michael Larson's name and not by the episode or by "scandal", e.g. [2]. SnowFire (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Press Your Luck scandal. Just finished reading the scandal article. All the pertinent information is there. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourcing seems fine, it's in older sources but talks about this person. Bit of a scandal later in life, but he's notable for the win on the show and what happened after. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Press Your Luck scandal back in, per SnowFire. A RM to move "Michael Larson" to "Press Your Luck scandal" was closed as "not moved". This whole "write a content fork, then nominate the old article for deletion" strategy feels like an end-run around that RM. Sceptre (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the extant article was and is an over-detailed pseudo-biography containing original research and un- and mis-sourced claims about someone notable for only one event, I began writing the event-based article on or before 2 Feb 2023 (per the cited sources in the original version of the article. The request to move the BIO1E was instigated at 15:54 UTC on 22 March 2024 by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), by which time I had been writing the event article for at least thirteen months, even saying in that very discussion, I began writing a Press Your Luck scandal from whole cloth to ensure 100% citation to reliable sources. I'm seven (of 22) sources deep in it right now, and was probably going to spend another month or so before ready to bring live. Furthermore, this AFD was begun by Jax 0677 (talk · contribs). Given all this, I'm unsure how any involved editor can be so plainly accused of what you claim. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Lakki Marwat bombing[edit]

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

Fails NEVENT. No lasting effects. Saqib (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "No lasting effects" seems rather early to call three days since the bombing, the day after an overnight operation resulting from it was held. There's arguments that could be made in regards to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS, but WP:LASTING is not the one (yet), since that one specifically states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable, and less-than-a-week-ago is certainly recent. AddWittyNameHere 01:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AddWittyNameHere, Noted. How about WP:TOOSOON ? — Saqib (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. Pakistan has so much terrorism that the odds of an individual incident getting long term coverage are slim unless it is exceptionally high profile and deadly, which this is not. However, it is notable as part of Pakistan's overall problem, so the information should be retained. This is what we did with the 100 past Pakistani terrorism articles that were AfD'd the past few months (though a few stayed their own articles) PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA, Sure - I'm fine with merge into Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the event has received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in international media: 9 June 2024, 11 June 2024, 16 June 2024. Maybe rename the article, but such events are almost always notable due to Pakistan Army connection. I'd suggest to defer this AFD for a year so we can see the lasting impact. 103.12.120.46 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- IP- As per this report, Pakistan witnessed as many as 245 incidents of terror attacks and counter-terror operations during the *irst quarter of 2024, resulting in 432 fatalities I'm sure each of them received similar amount of press coverage but do we need a standalone WP article on each one of them? I don't think so. This barely two paragraph long article should better be merged. WP is NOTDIRECTORY of terrorist attacks in Pakistan so we better focus on quality of our articles, not quantity. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above. The event does not seem to be too outstanding from other terrorist activities in Pakistan to merit its own article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Proposed deletions[edit]

Deletion Review[edit]