Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shanika Minor

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 no consensus. A possible redirect can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shanika Minor[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lacks WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E and WP:REFERENCE. She isn't (in my opinion) prominently known as a criminal in public nor enough in the same route as other publicly-known criminals. I also suggest a speedy delete. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 21:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Crime. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage - at most redirect to FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. The call for a 'speedy delete' is ludicrous and embarrassing. Giant Snowman 21:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirct to FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, 2010s. While it certainly does not fail WP:GNG or WP:REFERENCE, it is within the scope of WP:BLP1E, and by that policy, should be redirected to the most wanted list as the closest thing to an event article. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 23:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have decided to apologize for such a disruptive AfD prediction without reviewing or realizing. If I deserved to be put down for it, then I deserve it. I respect whatever response you throw at me out of this. I cannot lie and say "it was an accident", but I will admit that it was an unthinkable decision. I hope you all understand whether you accept my apology or I'd be blocked from editing on Wikipedia because of this ever again. I'm very sorry. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 01:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that deep, don't worry - it's a misguided/misunderstood nomination rationale, it's not the end of the world! Giant Snowman 09:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which way to vote on this one, so I won't. The speedy delete comment was disagreeable, but don't beat yourself up, we all make mistakes. Be kind to yourself. Peace. CT55555(talk) 00:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the coverage is over an extended period of time, so technically she's notable. I am not of a hard and fast opinion, however. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2023 (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.