Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest heists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. The list is basically a mirror of a sole source. If someone wants to create a well-defined list with multiple sources, they can message me or another admin to retrieve it.-Wafulz 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of largest heists[edit]
Article is poorly sourced, unotable, and a bad subject format. Andrew615 19:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Listcruft.--Edtropolis 19:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up per Wikipedia:Cruftcruft --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep subject of the article is encyclopedic, but the article needs better sourcing, and a clearer explanation of teh selection criteria. Alansohn 21:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all is The History Channel not a good enough source?.And I don't know about criteria or sources, I just trusted the 1 source I was able to find, this is the only professional source I could find for such a topic.Rodrigue 23:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The source provided lists them as "ten of the largest, most ingenious heists in history." That's great selection criteria for a TV show, where photogenics is a desired quality, but we need some sort of objective criteria for a Wikipedia article. I'm willing to grant for now that the subject is notable, but thus source does not establish the largest heists, as the title describes. Alansohn 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sole reference is not to The History Channel but rather to the Canadian History Television website, which does not identify the author of the list of big heists. The website does not identify any group of editors who make sure the content is accurate and of a neutral and scholarly point of view. No source is listed for the information. I have seen amazing crap put on the TV screen by a number of TV organizations, so no, a TV channel is not always a good enough source by itself to serve as a reliable source. It also appears to be largely an entertainment channel, running a large number of TV dramas such as CSI and JAG. Edison 23:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The source provided lists them as "ten of the largest, most ingenious heists in history." That's great selection criteria for a TV show, where photogenics is a desired quality, but we need some sort of objective criteria for a Wikipedia article. I'm willing to grant for now that the subject is notable, but thus source does not establish the largest heists, as the title describes. Alansohn 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as listcruft. If these heists are so notable individually, perhaps entries could be created for each of them. --Nonstopdrivel 01:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is VERY close to a copyright violation here, but if that's not concern enough, I'd still say it's a problem because lists of the largest X just tend to proflierate. If somebody wants to make articles about these heists, certainly the documentary would be a valid demonstration of notability, but listing them all together? Not what I consider the best idea. FrozenPurpleCube 01:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Once the individual cases have articles, someone could collect them in a Category:Thefts of over 10 million dollars or a Heists considered the biggest ever. But the current state of the article in question is awful. --Quuxplusone 07:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Several of them already have an article in wikipedia:Great Brinks Robbery, The Great Train Robbery of 1963, and the Lufthansa heist, and they aren't even very well sourced. Rodrigue 16:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps this is a better source [[1]], it seems alot more accurate, it only says greatest robberies, but look at the amounts.It is most likely an accurate list, arranged from highest to lowest, of the most money ever taken from a robbery.Don't know about its techical reliability, but the info should easily be verifiable. Rodrigue 17:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I think that you should do some more checking to see if there are articles about the various heists, and add a blue-link to them. I never know why people feel it necessary to do a blue-link to words like car or bank, but not to something that would add to the understanding. Second, the statement that a ranking of the heists would require adjustments for inflation and currency conversions that just "can't be done", that sounds like an excuse for not doing more. Finally, what's the definition of successful? Did they get away scot-free? Not clear from the article. It could be a good subject, worth expanding upon. Mandsford 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since this source [2] seems better in that it lists in order the largest to the tenth largest heists, the list needs to be rewritten to conform to that source. Rodrigue 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete/Userfy Until Verifiable The problem with the 2spare source is the same as previous ones: the source does not define its criteria or list its own sources. Looking at the comments below that list of 10 "greatest" (whatever that means) at least two people cite thefts for larger dollar amounts than the ones in the list (1) ~$100M Antwerp Diamond Center theft in 2003 [news article here] and (2) ~75M euro 2005 KLM Diamond heist [here]. Neither appear in the source, or in this article, which bring both into question. I'd say copy the existing data to the creator's sandbox until verifiable sources could be found as the topic itself seems of interest to those researching notable large crimes, but without a case-by-case citation of EACH item, or at the very least a scholarly reference covering the entire topic, this kind of article can only cause people to doubt Wikipedia's reliability. No prejudice against the topic, just the current execution. -Markeer 13:19, 19 June 2007 (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.