Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Mario Cerciello Rega

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 keep. There's consensus that this passes WP:GNG and, on slightly shakier grounds, WP:NOTNEWS. (non-admin closure) versacespace leave a message! 15:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Mario Cerciello Rega[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)

Although tragic, it doesn't need a dedicated article. Many murder cases get significant media attention, that doesn't mean they warrant an article. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both tragic and worthy of its own page. I started the article. This case is extremely notable ... locally, nationally, and internationally. I provided many, many, many reliable sources in the "Sources" section. Also, there is already an Italian Wikipedia article about this. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the more that I think about it, I believe that this is a "Snowball Keep". Or a "Speedy Keep". Or whatever the correct procedural terminology is. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: The fact that it has an Italian article has no bearing in this discussion. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has significant bearing. It's already established to be notable in Italy (i.e., Italian Wikipedia). Now -- as a result of yesterday's events -- it has become even "more" notable, even here in the USA. In fact, it's probably more notable in the USA than in Italy itself. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: It really doesn't have any bearing, I suggest you read WP:OTHERLANGS. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 16:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? Yes. However its not notable to have it's own article. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 16:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. But, please re-read what you just stated. Notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? Yes. However its not notable to have it's own article. I don't even understand what you're saying. To me, that statement is saying: It's notable to have an Italian Wikipedia article, but not an English Wikipedia article. (Unless I am misinterpreting your comment.) This case is highly notable (in Italy), due to the fact that two foreigners -- that is, American teens -- committed the murder. That's what the whole case is about. (The American involvement angle.) It's not just "some police officer that was killed in Italy". The notable part is that he was killed by American teenagers on vacation in Italy. Thus, that being the general thrust behind its notability, it is notable in the USA (i.e., English Wikipedia) just as much -- if not more so -- than in Italy (and Italian Wikipedia). In any event, we've both made our points clear. We will let others weigh into the discussion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Once again, none of what you are saying proves notability. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 16:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens upon dozens upon dozens of reliable sources -- local, national, and international -- does not invoke notability? That's actually the very definition of notability. (And it's probably "hundreds", not "dozens", of reliable sources.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG easily. NOTNEWS is a little fuzzier, but this is a case with likely long-term significance given the recent history of cross-border criminal cases involving Italy (Amanda Knox, Enrica Lexie case). --Trovatore (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC) UPDATE -- oh, also Cavalese cable car disaster (1998). --Trovatore (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG which its passes. Good sourcing. The article needs some formatting and improvements but AfD is not a clean-up tool.BabbaQ (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: - I like that you created this notable article. But, why did you do a source list, instead of including the sources in the article text? BabbaQ (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Hello. Thanks. Good question. This is what happened. I thought the event was important / significant / notable ... so I wanted to get an article started. My past experience has been that, one minute after I create a new article, someone calls for a "deletion" of it. Not necessarily a "defend-able" call ... but typically a "knee-jerk" reaction. So, when I first typed up the text, the first thing that I did was to add a million sources ... to lay the foundation that it is notable and that the "itchy trigger-finger" editors should not rush to a "deletion" call within 5 minutes of the article creation. Then, I hit "save" ... with the intention of fixing / editing / cleaning up the article, later. Also, with the expectation that -- once created -- other editors will chime in and improve the article. That's how my editing strategy goes, when I create a new article. (Rightly or wrongly.) So, in other words ... to answer your question ... when I create a new article, my prevalent concern is "protecting it from deletion" (by adding a million sources) ... a more prevalent concern, for me, than having the article be "nice and neat and clean" ... which takes time and effort and I can get to it later. Hope that makes some sense ... does it? Not saying that it's "right" or "wrong" ... but that is how my thinking goes when I create a new article, and expect it to be called for deletion, one or two minutes after I create it. I've been through this rodeo before. I don't start an article unless I think it's notable. And, after an AfD ... I am usually right / correct / aligned with consensus about 90+ percent of the time. So, again, I'd rather get the article started and establish notability ... by typing in a "million reliable sources" ... and worry about the "formatting" and "clean-up" later. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. And I fully agree. Very notable article subject.BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A highly unusual and notable case of a European police officer murdered by two American students. I see no good reason to delete. The murders of police officers generally receive far more attention than other murders in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. That's enough. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG, A highly unusual and notable case of a European police officer murdered by two American students. Covered in many news media. Purosinaloense T/K 11:49, 15 May 2021 (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.