Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination)

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. As in the first discussion, if one leaves aside all the conspiracy theorizing and political invective, opinions are still divided about whether this is a one-event news story or an event of lasting significance; and there's also no agreement about whether or how to apply WP:BLP to this case. I repeat the recommendation made in the first closure to revisit this after the election when people will perhaps be a little bit less excitable about all this.  Sandstein  10:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich
• (2nd nomination)
• (3rd nomination)

Murder of Seth Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Topic was a breaking news event that has not demonstrated lasting significance, as shown by the lack of significant media coverage of this single event, on its own merits, since the middle of July. Likewise there is no evidence this single event has lasting, historical significance.

No significant analysis has occurred since the middle of July. It is not perceived as catalyst for something else of lasting significance. Hence, it fails WP:Event criteria and WP:Lasting. And, we probably should avoid Recentism. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material (WP: Not info) or a news archive (Not news) such as newspapers maintain.

News values and the criteria used by Wikipedia, and encyclopedias generally, are dissimilar enough to preclude inclusion of this topic. In other words, the criteria that at one time qualified this news story for prominence in the news cycle, does not appear to translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article, per WP:GNG - based on current circumstances. The subject is notable for only one event and hence this topic fails WP:BLP1E and WP:1E. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• - Also, this diff might be of interest. [1].

---

Indeed we do not not have articles about persons notable for only one event which is why we do not have an article about Seth Rich. Most crime stories involve non-notable victims, and the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (events). Hence I voted to delete the article about Trayvon Martin but never considered deleting the article about his death. TFD (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That argument - that this is about the event, and not the person - is the only argument I have seen that might overcome the BLP argument. Am interested to see that addressed in the close. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I call TFD's response, muddying the waters. Seth Rich is the subject of this article, and the victim, and is intertwined as the topic. Heck, the title of this article is "Murder of Seth Rich. So WP:Event criteria, WP:Lasting, BLP1E, 1E, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:CRIME, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and WP:SENSATION are all relevant and all need to be considered as appropriate rationale for deletion. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's face it. Julian's Assagnge's comments were merely to cause a sensation and provide publicity for the release of his emails. And there is nothing to indicate that more than one event occurred, here. That one event was that Seth Rich was fatally wounded and died at the hospital. He was not a public figure - in that he did not seek publicity - he went about his everyday average life. All Assange succeeded in doing, back in July, was pile on by implying that Rich was involved in whistle blowing, while denying the same - this unfairly effects Rich's legacy and reputation that he leaves behind. This in turn is more of a burden that his family is compelled to carry, having no choice in the matter. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The murder happened on 10 July, 2016 and the article was created on 10 August 2016‎. It is now 18 September 2016, hardly enough time to show that the "topic was a breaking news event that has not demonstrated lasting significance". Newsweek covered it two days ago[2] so "No significant analysis has occurred since the middle of July" is wrong as well. It is significant enough for Hillary Clinton to talk about in in a speech. It is starting to be covered in the foreign press[3][4][5][6] (can someone who speaks the languages give a quick summary of what those sources say?). And the last AfD closed less than a month ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The above source (claiming significant analysis [7], appears to be not that at all. This came up in the discussion on the talk page and the subject is Jack Burkman, a republican lobbyist, and not this topic. This does not cover this topic in significant detail. In fact, it receives only passing mention in this source. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning Seth Ritch or his parents twenty times in a fifteen-paragraph article is "only passing mention"? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it mentions Seth Rich ten times, but in context, it is passing mention surrounding the subject Jack Burman. And his family is not included in the topic so, that is a strawman and has no relevance.Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is what is going on - Seth Rich is actually only mentioned three or four times in the article proper. The other mentions are in the title, two picture captions, 2 twitter feeds pasted into the article, some sort of outline on the left side, and a news feed at the bottom of the page. Also, this contains some heavy speculation later in the article (that I didn't notice before). To me it seems questionable a source. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

So, Seth Rich is mentioned incidentally, while coverage of the main subject is Jack Burkman. The article is about what Burkman is doing or did; what Burkman says or said; his reward; mixed in with naming the same old regurgitated fringe theories. This is not significant coverage. It does not demonstrate any possible historical value or lasing significance that pertains to this topic. This is a low quality source. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I translated the first two of the foriegn sources. I don't think Guy is going to be happy. But nevertheless:

1. The first foreign source [8] is a history of hacking the computer sytems of voter registration in Arizona, and the National Democratic Commitee. It speculates the Russians are behind it. It mentions Crowdstrike, Cozy Bear, Guccifer 2.0, the emails, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and so on. Seth Rich gets a barely passing mention - as only mentioned twice

2. Second foreign source: [9] is a hatchet job about the Clintons and Hilary Clinton in particular. Seth Rich recieves barely a passing mention - as only mentioned once.

As an aside, Guy, I can copy and paste these translations to your talk page if you wish. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

No need. And I don't understand why you might think I would be unhappy. If the sources only mention Seth Rich in passing, then they are not good sources to establish notability. Good to know. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, there is an urgent need to provide you with a translation of the passage slandering, repeat, slandering Mr. Rich, so I'm providing it in the blockquote. Hatchet job isn't a strong enough word for the piece whose writer is a known WikiLeaks associate.

Russian pirates having furnished the material to Wikileaks: But that can no longer be maintained because we know now that it was a member of the management/leadership of the DNC, the deceased Mr. Seth Rich, who leaked the DNC correspondence, that's why he was quickly assassinated by persons unknown". (French original: Des pirates russes auraient fourni de la matière à Wikileaks : mais cela ne tient pas debout, puisque nous savons maintenant que c´est un membre de la direction du DNC, feu Mr. Seth Rich, qui a fait fuiter la correspondance du DNC, ce pourquoi il a prestement été assassiné par des inconnus.)

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

What the hey, here's the rest of the story on this reliable foreign source: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/31/wikileaks-holocaust-denier-handled-moscow-cables. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

If you don't know what your alleged sources say, why bring them up at all? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The sources currently in the article is already enough. Foreign sources are just a bonus. Here is the Wikileaks offer covered in Puerto Rico[10], Columbia[11] and Spain[12]. This recent (September 22) source from France[13] has three paragraphs about Seth's murder. ZN3ukct (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. The previous AfD was less than a month ago. The close concluded: "this topic is probably best revisited a few months later when the election is over and the story's importance can be assessed at more of a distance."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. I just heard about this event and came to to Wikipedia to read more about it. The case is still open, so the article should be kept and expanded. -- Jtneill - Talk 04:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy keep It has been over two months since the murder are there have been sources pubslihed after the last AFD which describe intrest in this ongoing event.[14] (August 26) and [15] (September 16) ZN3ukct (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Struck by me; this user was CU blocked today. Geogene (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

There’s also this request for adminship with this unacknowledged Trump paraphrase + quote: "They're bringing vandalism. They're bringing disputes. Their puppets. And some, I assume, are good people." Remember the quote TradingJihadist, the blocked creator of the article, used in the edit summary? Comparing their writing styles and both users obviously having a beef with Wikipedia admins and boards, I suspect we’re dealing with one individual. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Keep is not likely based on these sources. The first one [16] adds no new information and hence nothing of value to add to this article. Julian Assange merely regurgitated what he already said to the press in the middle of July. He is engaging in speculation, and conspiracy theorizing. This is on the level of titillation and gossiping. This not reliable sourcing - it is redundancy. He is not revealing anyone as a source, just like before. Why does any news organization give him coverage merely for this, I cannot imagine, except for audience share. Also, this publication has an obvious conservative bias, and probably clashes with mainstream press views much of the time.

The primary subject of the second source is, once again, Jack Bukrman. And, the second part of this article merely regurgitates and encapsulates drama that was already covered in the press in mid-July. Hence, it adds no new information and cannot add anything worthwhile to this article. Not a useful source - it is redundant Steve Quinn (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as single event per spirit of WP:BLP1E (although he's dead, BLP allows for reasonable circumspection in recent deaths). Moreover... it's a quite poor and uninformative and actually weird article which the usual remedy is to fix it... but we can't. It's impossible to fix for complicated reasons but if you're familiar with the article, you might have an idea.They only thing that might -- I say might -- be notable about the event is the conspiracy theories around it. But we can't mention those! The article is under discretionary sanctions, is partially controlled by an RfC, and has a constellation of dysfunctional interactions attached to it. Look at the length of the talk page, for such a new on article on a tiny and (probably not even) marginally notable event.

Functional organizations know what they can do well and admit what they can't do well, and avoid the latter. We can't do this. We can't cover this event and make a decent and useful article. In addition, it's a timesink. Look at the talk page. It's eating up editor resources and engendering dysfunctional interactions. In return for this, we get a bad article, which even it was any good it very marginally notable (not even that IMO). The return on investment is all off. This is just the situation that WP:IAR was made for. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Notability for this topic is derived from coverage of the WikiLeaks reward ($20,000), during the middle of July. However, the actual topic, "Murder of Seth Rich", pertains to a non-public figure (or subject) who became temporarily noteworthy as a result of someone else's actions, which indicates this fails WP:1E, WP:Event criteria, and WP:BLP1E. This also means, the sourcing for notability pertains to one topic, while the article purports to cover another topic and is essentially WP:Synthesis.

And BLP emphasizes erring on the side of caution, but using the WikiLeaks reward as multiple sources seems to contradict this policy - because their content focuses on unfounded conspiracy theories. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable figure killed around 4am in DC about a block from his house. Doesn't have legs at this time; if this changes over the coming months, not a problem to recreate. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Someone killed in a high murder city is not the stuff a notable murder article is made of. Wikipedia is not news, and it is not a police leaders solicitation service such as crime stoppers, which is what the end of the article feels like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - plenty of great sources. latest AfD was quite recent with a No consensus result, having yet another one so soon is suspicious and POV pushing, the article keeps on growing as well. also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Please post the sources you have discovered to back up your assertion of "plenty of great sources". And, I can't seem to find "Suspicious and POV pushing" in GNG, BLP, or WP:NOT notability criteria. Apparently, this is not a convincing argument for "keep". Actually, I haven't seen any significant growth or much in the way of added content since it was created on 10 August. It has stayed pretty small all along.

I agree with User:Herostratus (above) who accurately described the continual current state of this article since August 10th "it's a quite poor and uninformative, and actually [a] weird article, [for] which the usual remedy is to fix it... but we can't. It's impossible to fix for complicated reasons..." (commas and brackets mine). I think this is an incredibly apt description Steve Quinn (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The article started out quite small on August 10 [17], and actually needed a lot of pruning due to various issues, and as a result, it presently is much smaller than that [18]. It appears to be a skeleton of its former self - and its former self, the article proper, was only a 260 word stub (really small). Steve Quinn (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"I haven't seen any significant growth or much in the way of added content since it was created on 10 August. It has stayed pretty small all along." But its talkpage is longer than some countries articles.[19] Very strange indeed. ZN3ukct (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:ASPERSIONS. I will soon be leaving one of those informational placards on your talkpage if nobody else has already. Geogene (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete one can only acknowledge that there are plenty of reports in reliable sources about this murder. However, newspapers don't have a WP:BLP policy, and we do. And as someone recently dead, content about Seth Rich falls under BLP - and his living family does as well. This article is a violation of BLP-driven snippets WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLP1E, and WP:NCRIME. In addition, WP:SENSATION, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME apply here - this is 100% driven by election season internet-echo-chamber ridiculousness, and if no further information comes to light, no one will even remember this except for nutjob conspiracy theorists (and of course Rich's friends and family).

As I noted here at AN, most of the delete !votes in the first AfD brought up BLP issues, yet BLP was not addressed in the close; this is not good. As I also noted in that dif, the best mainstream media (NYT, LA Times) only discuss this murder in light of Julian Assange's declared intention to intervene in the US election; Assange's offer of a reward is what drove the creation of the pile of sources we now have on this. Finally, if the closer has not seen how ludicrous Assange's efforts to make hay out of this murder are, please see the short video here from Dutch TV where an incredulous interviewer cannot believe what Assange is saying (counter to WikiLeak's declared policy of not revealing leakers, Assange implies that Rich was the person who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks and that is actually why he was murdered and why Wikileaks was offering the reward) It is just so slimey. And that is the basis for all the coverage - per Guy Macon's note above, the murder happened in mid-July and the article was created the day after Assange offered the reward and gave that interview. This article is a BLP violation and should not exist today; when there are strong BLP concerns they overwhelm standard Notability arguments. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC))

So your argument is that Assange should not have offered a reward and the media should not have mentioned that he did and should have provided only cursory local coverage as they routinely do for thousands of murders of non-notable people every year. But notability is determined by reliable secondary sources, not by editors. What are the BLP concerns? Are you saying that Wikipedia should not publish articles mentioning living or recently deceased people? TFD (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, that is not my argument; another diff with regard to that misrepresentation. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you please point specifically to where the BLP violation is? You also dropped 6 policies that the article is in violation of, without mentioning specifically how. I have asked repeatedly on the talk page and on User:MastCell's talk page and have not received any satisfactory answer. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This has been explained so many times by now that anybody that doesn't understand the issue is just about at the WP:CIR point. If you can't follow the discussion, that's not anyone's problem but your own. There is no obligation to keep going over things until everybody understands it, especially not when it's obvious that some people simply won't ever understand it. Geogene (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You have answered the same way everyone else has - by saying it's already been explained. Well it has to back up to a first explanation somewhere, and for this issue that never happened. You're also very good at disguising your personal attacks. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, the surface language of those BLP bits reads directly on what is going on here - directly on their surface; you don't even need to dig beneath. (how is it not clear to you that Seth Rich entered the public consciousness for one reason and one reason only - namely Assange "linking" (with all the ugly garbage that word carries anymore) his murder to the DNC email leak? ) But more importantly, I haven't seen you engage with BLP or the notion that newspapers don't have a BLP policy but WP does, and what that means. We don't treat living/recently dead people like newspapers do. A pile of reliable sources talking about X does not mean automatically that X comes into WP, if there is a problem with BLP. All I can say to you is please read BLP (we all breeze through policies and become dangerous enough to use them) - but please take some time and actually read it, and reflect on it and what it means to WP, and how it makes us different from a newspaper that just prints whatever people are yammering about. (the NYT has ~some~ of this in its motto "all the news that's fit to print") (as i noted at AN Here in the entirety of what I found that the NYT had to say about this matter: "WikiLeaks, the group that put out the D.N.C. emails publicly last month, interjected itself into the hacking case again this week when it offered a $20,000 reward for information on the shooting death last month of a former D.N.C. staff member, Seth Rich, outside his Washington home. His killing fueled speculation on the internet that he was somehow tied to the hacked emails, but the police have not given any credence to that speculation.
The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, has made it clear that he would like to hurt Mrs. Clinton’s bid for the White House, opposing her candidacy on policy and personal grounds. He has hinted that he has more material about the presidential campaign that he could release.") Not everything is "fit" for WP when it comes to content about living/recently dead people. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The case has received more than passing mention, Hillary Clinton and [[Newt Gingrichcommented on it, Wikileaks posted a reward and most recently Jack Burman has posted a reward, all of which was covered in reliable sources. There are indeed various narratives on unreliable sources, but they have been reported in reliable sources and hence become part of the story. This article provides readers with a recounting of the known facts and public reaction all in one place. TFD (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I seem to remember John Kerry visiting a middle school in 2004 and commenting on a textbook. Should we start on that article now? What about that nice person he said he was just talking to "the other day" Somewhere in Ohio, who had a typical-sounding family and was having trouble finding a job, or something? Does that person need an article too? Geogene (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

How could a high-profile murder case be comparable to John Kerry's comment on a textbook? I hope you understand why. ZN3ukct (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You should take a few minutes to understand the context of an argument before replying. Geogene (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh silly me. Well were those comments covered in (reliable sources? We shouldn't base our (encyclopedia just off of what you say. I hope you understand why. ZN3ukct (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

*Keep Well sourced, notable, and does not violate any of the alphabet soup policies that are currently being thrown about. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC) strike as consensus doesn't seem to matter on this topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Would that "rationale" be Jytdog's BLP rationale that you had earlier queried by asking "Could you please point specifically to where the BLP violation is?" Would you care to answer your own question, since you must have decided it was answered now that you have changed your opinion. Mr Ernie has removed the wording that implied (incorrectly) that his opinion had changed thanks to Jytdog's BLP rationale. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Scandal mongering by various people alleging that deceased stole from Clinton's campaign, and that Clinton's people had him assassinated in retaliation. No sources take the allegations seriously, and writing about it is a BLP violation. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, we should try to have some dignity. Geogene (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

With respect, Geogene, Wikipedia is routinely put in the position of covering scandals, and the community at large has been pretty clear that it views this responsibility as completely consistent with our project's "dignity". On this project, a topic's WP:Notability is established by it's representation in WP:Reliable sources--and we have scores (if not hundreds) or reliable sources covering this topic in local, national, and global press. The policies for inclusion are specifically designed to avoid topics from being avoided because particular editors (or even all of the involved editors!) hold the subjective view that the topic is "distasteful" or otherwise objectionable in some way. The community has adopted this approach for a large number of reasons, including a basic concern with WP:Neutral coverage, but most relevant to the current circumstances is that, if contributors were each allowed to predicate their arguments for inclusion on their idiosyncratic notions of what constitutes a "dignified" topic (or other similar WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale), then every content disagreement would turn into a deadlock about moral judgements and semantics, and nothing would ever get done on any topic, anywhere on this project. Believe me, if there's one thing I've learned in my long involvement here, it's that people can have powerful opinions on just about any factual matter.

Nor is BLP a bar here--as you know, that (ambiguously invoked) notion has been forwarded and vetted at length on the talk page and rejected by the large majority of editors involved there in the recent RfC and related discussions. I understand your objection to the behaviour underlying the events involved in this topic and even agree with your assessment that it's propagation in the media has been largely fueled by cynical political ploys. But none of that is reason to avoid discussing the matter entirely--it's, at most, an argument to show extreme caution in making sure our coverage of the details is neutral--which we can, should, and will be extremely careful of. But there is no valid policy rationale for sanitizing the project of all reference to this clearly notable topic. We can reasonably disagree as to what that topic is (I think people on both sides of this debate have failed to understand that the notability surrounds the conspiracy theories more so than the murder itself, for example) but the coverage is simply too massive ins cope to turn a blind eye to. Acknowledging that unavoidable reality and deciding to cover the topic (as neutrally as we can) in no way turns Wikipedia into a "tabloid".

I am not just yet including my own "SNOW Keep" !vote, though that's my first impulse, because I think there's a merge/rename middle ground solution here that is not being explored by the two "sides" to this contest of wills, but I do think those who oppose inclusion of this subject--lock, stock, and barrel--need to accept that the scale and coverage of the topic are such that this subject will be covered somewhere on the project, to some extent. It's just a matter of how we will cover it. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand Notability, thanks. Notability has little to do with the number of different sources that mention something. It's based on depth and persistence of coverage, both of which are absent here. Regardless of this AfD's outcome, six months from now, this article won't be here. The only question is how much of our time we waste before then. We've already wasted enough time entertaining the blocked troll that created this article to begin with. Geogene (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the number of sources is not a non-factor, especially when the sources are considered high-quality (and a great number of the sources in this instance come from major global news organizations). You are correct to cite depth as relevant, but I'm not sure you understand what that term means in the context of this project, because it rather cuts against your argument; "depth" here is a question of whether a source is primarily concerned with a topic or mentions it only incidentally and, in this instance, almost every source we have on the topic (and literally every one of the dozen or so sources currently cited in the article) are concerned solely with the topic of this article, and cover it at length. The fact that you, personally, feel some of those details are salacious and therefore should not have been reported upon to begin with does not translate to an analysis that the sources "lack depth" in the objective sense. As for persistence, this story has been in the news for months now--and, if anything, coverage of it is increasing at a substantial rate, with new news stories coming on an almost daily basis. So, I don't know what your definition of "persistent" is in this context, but I can fairly well guarantee the average Wikipedian would disagree with you on whether persistent coverage has taken place here. We could RfC that narrow issue, but I doubt you'd much care for that outcome and, more critically, I doubt the minority would accept that consensus anymore than they did that of the last RfC.

On the whole, I take the opposite view from you; regardless of this AfD's outcome, the sheer volume of sourcing means that this article (or at least some coverage of this topic, wherever it may be located) will exist in six months. I think by any neutral, non-emotional assessment of the coverage here, this topic qualifies as notable by miles. And, sadly, I think we're just beginning to see where the pundits are taking this hogwash, so there will come a point when even the current minority will have to bow to pressure from increasing community endorsement of the need for the article. I agree with you that it's a tragic state of affairs that the death of a young man who just want to serve the public interest is being leveraged for political gain in a vitriolic election. But at the end of the day, Wikipedia editors are expected to not be here to exclude or include content according to their own views, nor to WP:Right great wrongs, but rather to provide a neutral overview of what reliable sources say on a matter. If this were another context, I'd proffer a gentlewoman's bet with you as to whether Wikipedia covers this topic in six months, because I have a hard time believing you really do think it's inevitable that this article will be deleted, especially in light of how the consensus has worked out on the talk page--but as is, I can only appeal to you re-analyze the situation and consider which side is actually leading a time-wasting effort against the inevitable. Hint: when there's already a large number of editors involved, it's usually the side that is having a hard time accepting the consensus view. :) (meant with civility, not sarcasm). Snow ^{let's rap} 01:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad someone pointed out Wikipedia covers scandals - because it does, and even in an encyclopedic manner. Point well taken. Because the topic of the article under discussion does not pertain to a scandal. It is about the "murder" of a non-public person. So in advocating coverage of a scandal, as per the sources above, this means coverage of the WikiLeaks narrative, or something similar.

So this indicates a different article - something like "WikiLeaks narrative of events" or "Something similar" with a spin-off later entitled Related rumors - which are all unrelated to this topic - Murder of Seth Rich. This crime pertains to what police believe is a botched robbery (or suspected robbery) - not reward money - not speculation that he was a whistle blower - and not speculation that he was an FBI informant.

So, yeah, there are a lot of sources that cover the substance of the scandal - I don't know if it can be considered scores of sources given they all cover Assange's innuendos and actions and other right leaning speculation, which has been the same story repeated in how ever many media outlets, with no new analysis or any new insights emerging, even with Assange's second time around in the limelight. As an aside, WP:BLP has shown itself to be quite an effective bar or demarcation in regards to editing this article. It looks as though each one of User:MastCell's stated concerns [20], just prior to the RFC, has been left out of the article, and was backed up by the circumspect-extraordinaire RFC decision[21], and ironically recounted and reinforced by Jytdog in their above Ivote. So it seems to me that BLP works. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not reading Snow Rise's messages in their entirety (TLDR), but they think that BLP and Notability are WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? Really? I can only hope that the closer will discount these unfortunate misunderstandings of policy and of what I said. Geogene (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, as to the meat of your response there (what the actual relevant topic is, as covered in the first paragraph of your comment) I am in complete agreement. In fact, if you go back to my initial comment, you'll find I say much the same. (Funny that you may find someone is actually agreeing with you more than disagreeing with you if you don't TLDR--but given my verbosity, I can't complain if that happens here and there). I would absolutely, 100% endorse an approach that combined deleting this article and replacing it with something with a title that reflects the dubious nature of the topic. I think that can be supported by the weight of the sources easily. We are in agreement that the main topic is the political spin surrounding this murder, not the murder itself. I don't think it necessarily makes sense to have separate articles for the political story and the underlying murder, but at the very least, the article name should reflect the actual topic: the conspiracy theory about the death of Seth Rich.

The solution I actually think makes most sense (but which might be difficult to sell at this point, because everyone has retreated to their entrenched little piece of ground on this topic) would be to merge this article into List of Conspiracy Theories#Clinton Body Count, then briefly detail what is known about this (i.e. what investigators have said) and then discuss how this tiny bit of information got parlayed into a conspiracy theory--who that theory started with, and how it evolved--all condensed down to just a few sentences, for a one or two paragraph total summary in an article that clearly labels this story as an urban myth, but one which grew to noteworthy proportions. And we wouldn't even need to utilize any synthesis because Snopes and other reliable sources have already characterized this story (and similar stories that cropped up over the summer) as an obvious outgrowth of the Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory. Does that sound like an approach you might endorse? Snow ^{let's rap} 05:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I am the one that wrote the post to which you are referring, and Geogene commented underneath. I can't see how such a merge would work. But, I could support opening up a new section on the "List of conspiracy theories" page regarding WikiLeaks reward and related right leaning speculation, in agreement with GNG and BLP. But I cannot support putting it under Clinton Body Count - if elaboration is needed I can do so, but I think here is not the appropriate venue. I think upon reaching a consensus for opening up a section, it should be started from scratch and built up from there. I think it is best to just leave this article behind. Also, I think the discussion regarding these matters should moved somewhere else - I suppose the "List of conspiracy theories" talk page - unless there is a better place. Well? Steve Quinn (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletionists are so funny, you always dictates how others should do, clearly there are no obvious Delete consensus as of today. There are no point in putting out demands before we have a AfD result.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Obviously this is not and cannot be a demand. So, please do not mischaracterize what I am saying. If you're not interested then that is no problem. Maybe other people are interested in this or some variation of it - and this opens up the possibility - that is all. And I am not the one who originally proposed this as a possibility - someone else did, so I am only the second person. So, please do not try to put all of this on my shoulders. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I am not the first one that proposed delete - Snow did. And it seems we have been on opposing sides regarding this matter (I think). So, please look somewhere else to point fingers. Also, it seems there are only two or three sticking points, and I have to say that is an "8" on a scale of "10". Steve Quinn (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I missed the part about deleting this one and creating another appropriately titled article. Apparently, this is another proposal on the table. Well, let the people decide. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I can see the argument for not placing it under the Clinton Body Count subheader. That just seemed like a good pragmatic choice because some sources have linked it to a number of other murder conspiracy theories involving people who died in the last year, all supposedly in connection with the Clinton's, through some supposed circuitous route or another. My thinking was that this would establish the "conspiracy theory" classification of the topic. But, as I said, I appreciate there are some possible issues with that approach too--so I, for one, would still support the same approach under a separate section. But every one would have to come to terms on the neutrality of the wording, which could take some time. Anyway, as you say, we have a better place to hammer out these details. I was hoping that a merge vote might emerge at this point, but since this is looking like no consensus, might as well kick the issue back to TP, so as to not distract further here. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. The article does not explain why its subject is notable. The references do explain – you don't even need to read them to find out, just reading their titles is enough. Is it really correct that BLP considerations prevent the reason for the notability being mentioned in the text of the article, but allow it to be made plainly visible in the reference list? Maproom (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

That is a question that has been raised and debated at length on the talk page. It has been...divisive. I'm hoping the merge discussion above might represent a middle-ground solution that could bridge that gap and resolve exactly the dis-coherence you point out. The key concern of the vocal minority who have been fighting introduction of the notable elements of the story is that it could be interpreted as endorsement of the more salacious details, some of which have been reasonably classified as little more than wild speculation tinged with outright conspiracy theory. A majority have supported an approach of including such information, but only on condition of a strict effort to carefully contextualize and attribute the more sordid implications. They feel that BLP applies in that it requires a higher standard of sourcing, but that, given that all of the sources focus on these issues, they should be included.

Finding an approach to a consensus that wasn't objected to by someone within an hour has been elusive--and apparently has been since well before most of us were summoned by the most recent RfC. But I hope this approach has a chance. Since the information will be located in a namespace which clearly underscores the dubious nature of the claims, I hope we can move past the question of whether BLP prevents us from covering salacious details for any topic which includes a victim who is otherwise non-notable, even if every source used in the article is primarily concerned with just those facets of the topic. I personally think the minority made that call wrong, but if we can simply remove that question from the equation, by changing the focus created by the framing namespace, I think we stand a good chance of getting somewhere finally. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The subject of this article is the murder of Seth Rich. That event is notable. Seth Rich himself is not notable. However his murder was a notable event covered in reliable sources. Editors have worked to remove any mention of why this event is notable, which you can see from the talk page. I have asked several times for a concise explanation of why the article is a violation of BLP, but have yet to receive a response. Snow Rise's assessment is accurate. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep After a very spurious issue raised about a source, I made the observation that I felt "this article has been censored to the point that the subject's notability has been entirely removed - it would now almost qualify as an AfD candidate". [22]. The AfD proposer, along with many of those who have voted delete, have been amongst those editors who have persistently attempted to remove from this article the very content that would make it a notable subject. This article seems to have gained an extraordinary amount of attention, turning a minor piece of conspiracy theory connected to an otherwise non-notable murder into something of a national security issue. There has been a concerted attempt to delete sourced content, and now that the cracks are appearing in that attempt (see the RS discussion [23]) the new route is now to delete the article. I have just had a threat [24] posted on my talk page after reinserting some sourced content (from the source that the RS noticeboard decided was acceptable) - this is stooping to new lows. All past consensus involving those who are now voting here for the article to be deleted must be set aside - they can't have their cake and eat it. They cannot both want the article deleted and want the article retained but certain content excluded. And a AfD must allow editors the option to present sources and to improve the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not attribute motives that did not exist to questioning the Telegraph source such as "spurious" (inauthentic, insincere). I happened to have worked with the editor who opened that Noticboard thread to which you have linked [25], [26]. This person's efforts have been sincere regarding the article. There were even other sources proposed in its place by other editors.

So, the combined sincere efforts of several editors were aimed finding a source of reasonably good quality as a reference for the sentence that needed sourcing.

If you read this section on the talk page of the Seth Rich article [27] you will see this is true. I'm sure you can understand trying to ensure a reference is of good quality. And this same person opened that thread on the talk page (just look at the opening). And this same person came out in support of the Telegraph source[28] after the discussion in the Reliable sources noticeboard.

I'll leave it to whoever reads this blurb to decide the sincerity of an editor who first questions a source and then advocates for it in the end. Also, again please don't attribute to editors motives that do not exist, such as "censoring". This is POV, but it also labeling based on other's editing practices (please see WP:NPA) and it is the same with "spurious".

And it is arguable as to whether or not this event, this murder, is connected to a national security issue. There has been no definitive proof that this is the case. Such descriptions are based on speculation that adds 2+2 but has not resulted "4" or any other number. All we are left with is the equation. The only things that are known is that Rich was killed and police suspect it was a robbery attempt (a botched robbery). The police support no other theories.

So without a definitive link to all these theories how can this be placed in a Wikipedia article? Our standards are either higher or just plain different because our content is not tied to the news cycle or newspaper practices. All the conclusions based on speculation appear to belong in another article that are covered as "theories". Sorry for the long post. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who could seriously bring a question to the RS noticeboard about The Telegraph being a suitable source is either doing it as a conscious timewasting exercise (i.e. doing it for bad faith reasons) or is doing it out of shear incompetence. "There's absolutely no question whatsoever about this. The Daily Telegraph is obviously WP:RS. duh." concluded one editor, "The Telegraph is, indeed, a presumptively reliable source" concluded another. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete for the following reasons:

- BLP. We’ve been over this again and again, so in the words of one of the people BLP is meant to protect : “Now we have two problems we’re trying to deal with,” Joel Rich, Seth’s father, told The Huffington Post on (August 15, 2016). “One is getting over the death of Seth and the hole that will be there forever... The other problem is this distraction of people trying to... mess up his reputation and his legacy with absolutely no facts.”

- Lack of notability 1. The event itself, a fatal shooting committed by person(s) unknown on July 10, 2016, in Washington, D.C., is not notable by Wikipedia standards. It happened at 04:19 a.m. in an area where there had recently been several robberies at gunpoint. The police department posted their usual $25,000 reward offer for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible. The shooting received low-key coverage as an unsolved crime by a few reliable sources, for example Roll Call, the Washington Post and the individual’s hometown newspaper.

- Lack of notability 2. The victim, a 27-year-old employee of the Democratic National Committee working in their voter expansion program to boost voter registration, is not notable by Wikipedia standards. He was not a public figure and did not seek publicity, otherwise it would have been reported in the media.

- Lack of notability 3. Conspiracy rumor mongers latched onto the event but were ignored by reliable sources and thoroughly debunked by Snopes.

- Lack of notability 4 – smoke and mirrors. In a tweet on August 9, 2016, a third party offered a §20,000 reward for in formation leading to the conviction of the shooter. In various TV interviews on August 9, 2016, on August 25, 2016, etc., the same third party implied while, simultaneously, denying implying that the victim was the source of the approx. 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from DNC servers and put online in a searchable data base on July 20, 2016. The material is believed to have originated from groups of Russian hackers (Arstechnica, TechCrunch, Motherboard), something Wikileaks is denying. The ensuing media coverage of the interviews was about the third party, not about the shooting victim (WP:LOWPROFILE).

- Lack of notability 5 – hot air. On September 14, 2016, another third party offered a $100,000 reward which, except for brief mentions on two local TV news broadcasts (NBC Washington, Fox5 DC) was ignored by reliable news media, possibly because the individual offering the reward has a reputation for showboating without substance (Snopes factcheck). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

- BLP2. As recent edits have shown, speculations keep getting inserted into the article under the guise of "but we're not really saying/implying". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The article's lack of notability comes about entirely because the misuse of BLP has removed all content that gives it notability. BLP should not be used to assert that content can be excluded simply because a relative connected to the deceased individual that is the article's subject has said that he dislikes certain speculation expressed in various RS media sources. Sourced text like this "Speculation, originating as "a conspiracy theory on the internet", that Rich was linked to the WikiLeaks release of Democratic Party internal emails and that this was connected to his subsequent murder, increased when WikiLeaks announced a reward for information leading to the conviction of Rich's killer. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, refused to confirm or deny that Rich was the source - however, a statement from WikiLeaks said the offered reward "should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or that his murder is connected to our publications" does not indulge in speculation, does not make editorialized linkages, and is a reasonable and concise summary of the sort of content that would indicate the subject is notable enough for an article. To have it repeatedly deleted for BLP reasons is an affront to npov editing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The guy isn't notable, whether he was murdered or still walking. Wikileaks' reward offer doesn't change this. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This is at once a technically true statement, and yet also a deeply misleading way of looking at the actual notability involved here, which is substantial. You are correct that our WP:Reliable sources say nothing substantial enough about Seth Rich's life to make him intrinsically notable in himself. But the media furor and conspiracy theory speculation are clearly a notable topic by any remotely faithful reading of our actual policies on this matter (WP:NOTABILITY, WP:GNG, WP:WEIGHT) and community consensus generally. And Wikipedia does in fact have articles about people who are primarily famous as victims, where the circumstances surrounding what befell them have become notable in their own right.

I actually agree with you insofar as I think a namespace change here is critically necessary, for three reasons: 1) BLP concerns, 2) Neutrality/Weight concerns, and 3) So that maybe some people on both sides can start to feel a little more flexible in their positions here. But suggesting that there is no notability here whatsoever, just because Seth Rich was not imminently notable in life, is a case of absolutely missing the forest for the trees--or rather one specific tree. Respectfully. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Saying the victim's family "dislikes certain speculation expressed in various RS media sources" understates the family's deep feelings of grief and torment about the tornado that has befallen their son and them as a result of one random act of violence WP:1E, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. As essentially stated above, Seth's father has said, they have two major issues to deal with.

Also, the above is an example of the doublespeak that hampers efforts to source this article according to either GNG or BLP. "Speculation... increased when WikiLeaks announced a reward for information leading to the conviction of Rich's killer. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, refused to confirm or deny that Rich was the source - however, a statement from WikiLeaks said the offered reward "should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or that his murder is connected to our publications" -- I agree it is not editorializing, and mere reporting. But it shows Assange is running a game on anybody who will bother to listen and the press is simply is megaphone. (Redacted) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your earlier version of this reply might be more revealing of motives [29]: a long diatribe against Assange, completely off topic for here (aside from the language and accusations), and an extremist pov against WikiLeaks: it seems that merely suggesting that an individual might have sent material to WikiLeaks is, in your eyes, "dragging" that person's "reputation and legacy through the dirt". I doubt whether anyone who has actually provides leaked material to WikiLeaks would have such a low opinion of themselves and their actions, nor would the vast majority of persons who have attained knowledge of otherwise shadowy and secretive activities thanks to WikiLeaks have that opinion. Your "understates the family's deep feelings of grief and torment about the tornado that has befallen their son" comment is false sentimentality - you have no actual connection to these people so you cannot appropriate their feelings to argue your case here. Nor can their opinions and feelings have a veto over this article's existence: articles do not disappear because someone connected to their subject dislikes that the subject was written about in RS media outlets in a certain way. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I redacted that for a reason and not the reason you are stating. I had no problem posting that. The only reason I didn't was because I felt it was too long. But since you can't respect that and have decided to make it an issue, below is the full post. It demonstrates the usefulness of BLP and GNG, and shows that BLP has not been misued. And it is exactly on topic, as related to your above post. I think it would be best to not attribute intentions or motivations to other editors they do not have. Also, if Assange is your hero I don't have a problem with that. And, you have mis-characterized this as an entire diatribe against Aassange, this is not the case, and that is quite a myopic view. Anyway here is the full post:

Saying the victim's family "dislikes certain speculation expressed in various RS media sources" understates the family's deep feelings of grief and torment about the tornado that has befallen their son and them as a result of one random act of violence WP:1E, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. As essentially stated above, Seth's father has said, they have two major issues to deal with.

The first is the loss of their son and, as a result, the hole that is present in their lives. The second is posthumously dragging Seth's reputation and legacy through the dirt "with absolutely no facts" WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:SENSATION. It is then easy to empathize with the family's exacerbated (or amplified) feelings of not just grief, but also of unjust treatment - due to Assange's callousness (AVOIDVICTIM).

They are entitled to grieve and remember in their own space, among other family members and close friends. This "right" has been seized from them, and this is apparent (AVOIDVICTIM).

Wikipedia does not have to sanction or engage in this kind of behavior based on its core editing policies.

These are WP:Undue (NPOV}; WP:SYN (NOR); and WP:V - indicating that because Assange is also not a reliable source (NPOV - WP:FRINGE), who, instead, supports promotes fringe theories - as has been shown in the press, as well as above by Space Time Continuum. And, while centering on this story-line in the press, Assange has demonstrated that he is a committed and uabashed self-promoter WP:SOAP - falling far short of being a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Also, BLP states that "we must be "be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". Arguments have been presented, which say we could indicate notability based on coverage of Assange's insinuations, which have been shown to lead in only one direction - always toward the promotion of fringe theories. Are these the high quality sources that we prefer to indicate notability? For myself, I don't think so.

Hence it seems, this is the purpose of BLP - AVOIDVICTIM - to respect their right to privacy, but mostly to avoid re-victimizing them, while also re-victimizing their recently deceased son WP:BDP (between 6 months and two years). Based on the above, it seems to me, consideration for BLP and GNG are useful when contemplating adding content to this article or if in fact it is worthy of inclusion as a stand-alone article WP:NRV. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield wrote, "it seems that merely suggesting that an individual might have sent material to WikiLeaks is, in your eyes, "dragging" that person's "reputation and legacy through the dirt". I understand your saying this, but there is much more than that.

It is the weight of rampant conspriacy theories on the internet, the continual speculation that Seth was assassinated for being the whistle blower for WikiLeaks, that he was an FBI informant on his way to the FBI office, and was assassinated for that by the organization he worked for or assassinated by a certain presidential campaign organization. Even you said this has become a national security issue.

I haven't actually "heard" that one - does this mean Seth was connected to a foreign government? All of these impugn his reputation and that which he leaves afterwards, his legacy, in eyes of certain segments of the population. This exacerbates the stress and feelings of his family - it adds much more weight on their shoulders on top of what is already a tragedy - Rich's death. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, I think the press coverage, and so on, might be the most responsible, if we are to try to affix blame, or if there is any blame to affix. In that regard, it seems your view is different than mine and so be it. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't actually say "this has become a national security issue" - I said that some editors were obsessing over removing content from a minor article as if it were a national security issue. But the real obsession seems to be amongst surrogate emotion-carriers, confidently stating to know what relatives of the deceased feel, think, and want - and are presenting their third hand emotions (what I earlier called false sentimentality) as if they were a valid reason to delete the content that gives the subject its notability. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The family has made statements to the press expressing how they feel. One such example of this is the above post by User:SpaceTimeContinuum. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is more of what I mean - expressing how they feel to the press: [30], [31], [32]. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete The article is a coatrack for innuendo to promote a political conspiracy theory. The nominal subject of the article is an event which does not meet WP's notability test. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I can see 8 different sources covering his death. I am not sure how that qualifies as not notable. I would propose let the article be developed for say a few months and then renominate it then. Nergaal (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure which sources you are talking about. Here at the Afd, or in the Murder of Seth Rich article? What I mean is I'd like the opportunity to refute. I opened this AfD contending that there has been no new information since the middle of July, including no new analysis, and nothing that demonstrates historical value - especially since this appears to be a non-issue, having fallen off the cycle of news in the media. It is no longer being pinged on their radar (or sonar?) Steve Quinn (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Google Trends demonstrates that interest in "Seth Rich" and as related to "WikiLeaks" previously peaked on August 10th [33], [34]. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, you started this nom only a month after the previous AfD was rejected. You sound overzealous. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Nominator obviously thinks this is not notable, and is presenting justifications for that view. Saying it's "overzealous" is begging the question. Geogene (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, "overzealous" doesn't answer the request as to which sources the editor is referring. It seems like a vague assertion, and assumes which "eight different sources" are being identified. Nobody knows, and "overzealous" doesn't seem to answer the question. All I did was demonstrate that anything related to Seth Rich, and/or the WikiLeaks reward does not have sustained momentum. It stood up for a time - climaxing on August 10th.

That was 47 days ago. That story is way back there (in time) not here, which is September 26th. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

There are 95,000 hits for a google search of "Seth Rich" + death. Amongst the results I see articles in Newsweek, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, Huffington Post, Forward, NBC, Snopes, Washington Times, Washington Post, Fox News, Sydney Morning Herald, The Independent, msn, Belfast Telegraph, and so on, (and of course many non-RS political activist sites and blogs). Many of these RS sources were cited in the last AfD. The trouble is, the editors who want this article deleted have been excluding every single piece of content from RS sources by misusing BLP guidelines, and then misusing remedies intended to apply to US politics articles in order to enforce that exclusion. (As an example, this RS discussion [35] led to this [36] which resulted in this [37] and this [38]). Usually an AfD thread will involve discussion about how the article can be improved, and will very often include ongoing editing of the article under discussion in order to address issues raised in the AfD. None of this can happen here - any article improvement, any content added to indicate notability, is immediately deleted from the article. This AfD is in many ways a fraud: the article has been carefully set up to be deleted by the removal of content that makes its subject notable, and control of the article has been curtailed so that this state of non-notability will be retained throughout the AfD discussion. The constant bringing up of BLP as a delete rationale is not backed up by actual BLP guidelines (see WP:BDP) - Seth Rich is dead, and so BLP restrictions on content only apply to "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends". "Implications" is intended to cover unintended results affecting those relatives and friends, such as legal implications, or issues of personal safety, or employment issues, or issues involving being identified, and so on. "Implications" does not mean relative X is upset that what started as an "internet conspiracy theory" (to use the Telegraph wording) began to be reported in mainstream media, and that those mainstream media reports should therefor be deleted. Nor is the content of these RS sources "contentious or questionable". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"Implication" is an English word that relates directly to the attempt to promote SYNTH innuendo by insinuating Assange's remarks into the subject of this article. Your denial is weak and not consistent with established WP policy and standards. We do not publish defamatory content here. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The subject of this article should be based on sources - if those sources repeatedly mention Assange there is no insinuation. There is also no "defamatory content" - if there were you could go whine to some administrator to get redacted the content that I have earlier posted here in red, and also get most of the edit history of the article redacted. In what reasonable way could any of the content in the RS sources mentioned (or in the red text) have "implications for the living relatives and friends" of Rich. "Implications" does not mean "annoyance that something is being written about". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:REHASH SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

95,000 Google hits really don't mean anything, because whatever search term is used will generate a significant number of hits.

"Seth Rich" + books results in over 250,000 hits. - "Jupiter" + planet results in 25 million hits. - "Shakespeare" + quotes results in 3,900,000 hits. - "Ancient Rome" results in 6,330,000 hits. Google is parsing any terms used and generating hits on those, in variations of combinations. This has nothing to do with sustained momentum or notability. There is no indication of what is trending now.

And, it doesn't inform about when a story was strongly trending in the past. My links demonstrate [39], [40] that trending for this story peaked on August 10th and fell sharply on August 11th and has not recovered. Looking at what is trending now [41] - this story isn't in the top 200, and that is only as far down as I looked. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Newsweek source mentioned above [42] says Rich decided to walk home, police responded to gunfire, and they found Rich fatally wounded, and I quote:

And that was enough to fire up the right-wing Twitterverse with yet another round of...conspiracy theories, this one claiming that Rich was murdered—at dawn—as he was on his way to sing to the FBI about damning internal DNC emails. Such sinister notions might have evaporated had not Julian Assange hurled a thunderbolt into the affair a few weeks later. The WikiLeaks impresario, still penned up in Ecuador’s London embassy...announced he was offering a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in the Rich case. He hinted darkly that the slain man had been a source in his organization's recent publication of 30,000 internal DNC emails...[and so on]

This was followed by the doublespeak I noted above. But the point is, the timeline stated by Newsweek is that the WikiLeaks reward came "a few weeks" after Rich's death. This shows Julian Assange's announcement of a reward had nothing to do with the suspected robbery and Rich's subsequent death (see Newsweek). His death occurred without Assange's and WikiLeaks involvement.

So, Assange's hogwash, when he "...hinted darkly that the slain man had been a source in his organization's recent publication of 30,000 internal DNC emails", has nothing to do with this topic. I have to agree with User:SPECIFICO - to go this route, and rationalize coverage of Julain Assange's intentionally misleading statements as relevant to this topic is encouraging using this article as a WP:Coatrack.

In other words, a platform to recount Assange's babbling nonsense. Because that is what it is, not showing conclusive proof and in fact discounting that conclusive proof exists. He has admitted that this was one way to promote the release of the WikiLinks emails. Previously, he was able to count on reputable newspapers for release of the Manning materials. Apparently, this time he had to rely on his own promotional scheme.

And there those who seem unable to acknowledge this and act as if his ridiculous gibberish is useful for indicating notability. Also, once again, BLP is not being misused Steve Quinn (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It is becoming clear where your delete pov is from - some sort of rabid hatred of Assange (one wonders what has he done to generate such personal animosity - trodden on your foot perhaps, or exposed some secret surveillance project you were part of). "Assange's hogwash"; "Assange's babbling nonsense"; "his ridiculous gibberish", well, unfortunately for your pov, and unlike your OR opinions, his comments have been reported in reliable sources, which is what actually matters here for notability. The amount of red herrings and doublespeak and distortions that the delete advocates have been coming up with is becoming hilarious. The latest, Google trends, is decisively dismissed by Snow Rise, below. The BLP dead horse is still being flogged. And now it is claimed that things that resulted from, or were reported about, Rich's murder in the days and weeks after the murder have "nothing to do with this topic". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• folks, please keep in mind WP:BLUDGEON. No here is going to convince the other person, and this is not productive AfD discussion. The above really should be hatted, but please just restrain your selves and keep in mind that some admin is going to have to close this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog is correct, I am not here to convince another person. I'm here to discuss notability issues. I can't help it if others get offended by that. I guess it goes with the job of supporting content policies and guidelines. My above comments are not POV or WP:OR because they are supported by the sources we have been discussing. Otherwise it would not be helpful to add such comments to this AfD. Implying the Seth Rich is a WikiLeaks source, then denying, while not denying, by saying WikiLeaks doesn't reveal sources, and the WikiLeaks website while also saying the reward does not imply should not be taken as an implication that Rich was involved in the email leak seems like doublespeak, as well as ridiculous gibberish and babbling nonsense - to me. Sorry. Perhaps a more positive view is that brooks also babble (as in babbling brook). Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Also, my Google Trends graph has actually shown itself to be helpful by being proportional and using relative terms. It simply shows that Seth Rich as the subject, and the Murder of Seth Rich as the topic and event do not demonstrate sustainable momentum (I really don't mean to offend anyone. I'm just tryin' to present some facts, is all). Steve Quinn (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Editors argued to exclude the Wikileaks reward information on BLP grounds. An RFC (closed by an admin) concluded the claim did not run afoul of BLP. Now editors use the same BLP argument rejected by the RFC to argue for deletion, and less than a month after an earlier failed AfD. I suggest this discussion be closed. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Editors are not using the same BLP argument for deletion. That is over simplistic. The RFC was a well defined and limited issue. There is no correlation between the RFC and this deletion discussion. These are two different issues, and two different forums. I have a counter-suggestion - that this AfD remain open. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I support keeping this AfD open. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Here is a 90-day Google trendline [43] - "Seth Rich" is that tiny blue blip. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You can't honestly think that's going to move the needle on whether this article should exist? First off, that is some pretty weak analogical reasoning; of course "Seth Rich" looks small when compared against literally the two most searched names on all of the internet in the last two years... Here is Seth Rich's name when charted against the name of another person who is in the news solely as a consequence of being a victim, Keith Lamont Scott: [44]. But I wouldn't suggest going to that article and suggesting it should be deleted based on how his name tracks when compared to Donald Trump: [45]. Seriously, if you don't see how your formatted that graph to support your argument, I genuinely would recommend that you read our article on confirmation bias.

Second, and more fundamentally, even if your comparisons weren't cherry-picked to support your pre-determined outcome of choice, on this project you cannot just construct idiosyncratic tests for what constitutes "real" notability and expect that test to stand in for the manner of verification of notability that our policies require. The relevant notability guideline for this context is WP:GNG; the conditions in that policy represent community consensus on what what qualifies a topic for lasting notability, not google analytics, which just invites subjectivity if applied the way you want to here.

Look, clearly there is still division here on a whole lot of issues (BLP, Neutrality, COMMONNAME, and on and on) and people can reasonably disagree on them. But one argument for deletion that is dead on arrival is that this topic somehow does not qualify as notable. We have hundreds of news stories from reliable sources in local, national, and global press; articles concerned with Rich's death more or less exclusively. Those are the only metrics that are outcome determinative for notability on this project: not personal impressionistic reads and not loaded comparisons to literally the single biggest news topic in the world at present... Snow ^{let's rap} 12:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The trendline is a useful tool for determining a subject's staying power, it's not the end-all be-all. Your claim of "hundreds of news stories" is ridiculous; if you can post 50 from quality sources I'll throw myself under a truck (and don't post a link showing search results). Everyone here voting for deletion knows that this story made it into the news, there is no disagreement about that, but news coverage alone does not in and of itself establish notability. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

With respect, SMS, I don't think the Google trendline was at all a useful metric as you tried to use it; you can't just compare the topic of a random article that you dislike with the single greatest political contest of the twenty-first century to date/the largest news story of the year. Doing that is not going to convince anyone that the topic lacks notability; it is only going to make other editors feel that the argument you are forwarding lacks any sense of perspective and proportion.

As to providing you with an index of 50 sources, neither I nor any other editor is going to spend a quarter of their day compiling that kind of information for you in order to satisfy you that robust sourcing exists--certainly not when the sources already listed in the article satisfy our notability standards in and of themselves. (Besides, I don't want any of my fellow editors throwing themselves under a truck!). But let's look at what you are saying there for a second and how it jives with policy on how is established on this project. It seems as if you are saying in your last comment that if almost-but-not-quite-50 WP:reliable sources (in local, national, and global press) exist on this topic, you still oppose the notion that it is notable. That is a striking departure from policy/community consensus on how these determinations are meant to be handled; the only conditions that need to be met here (with regard to the specific issue of notability) are those found in WP:GNG. There are no additional provisions of "providing enough sources that all editors are satisfied as to their subjective standards about whether an article is 'truly' notable". If that were the standard, 95% of our present articles would never have made it past this level of analysis.

Our notability standards require only significant coverage in reliable sources; and I think by any reasonable interpretation that coverage exists here in the national and global press, including numerous of the U.S.'s largest news affiliates, newspapers, and newsmagazines; the story did not merely "make it into the news". If you really, honestly think that those sources do not represent reliable sources or significant coverage, we could pass them by WP:RSN, but I think the reality is that every editor here knows exactly the analysis they will return to us. This "lacks notability" argument holds absolutely zero water and is nothing more than a red herring that is distracting us from the more substantial issues that we need to try to form a meeting of the minds on, if we are to have any hope of reasonable solutions to the disagreements here. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• folks, please stop arguing; no one is going to convince anyone. And some admin has to close this. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not "arguing" to produce a carefully worded reply explaining why a google trendline analysis, presented as a delete reason, is worthless for its intended purpose. Nor is it a personal attack [46]. If you think Snow Rise's reply is "not going to convince anyone", please explain why it is not - to me the reply seems correct in its analysis and conclusively dismisses the google trendline as being relevant to this AfD. (BTW, it seems that the deleters' don't even want the article to mention that the murder remains unsolved! [47].) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually in agreement with both of you here. I wouldn't classify the discourse that Somedifferentstuff and I were engaged in as "arguing" so much as discussing. I trust that he understands that my criticism is directed at his reasoning and not at him personally (for my part, I see nothing personalizing the discussion in his comments). On the other hand, I tend to agree with Jytdog; the views here have become quite entrenched and this looks to me like an absolutely textbook "no consensus" discussion. It's probably past time that we had a close and took these issues back to the talk page for some (hopefully more productive) further discussion. The only thing this AfD was ever going to accomplish was to drag more editors into the dispute (which may yet end up being a good thing, we shall see). I personally feel there is a lot of unexplored middle ground here. Particularly, I think there's some merit in a rename or merge approach (and some tacit support from both "sides" here for that possibility); I don't think I'll have enough time to advocate for that solution myself on the talk page in the next week, but if someone would like to carry the flag on that approach, I think it has the potential to bear fruit. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

A source that mentions or refers to the crime is not equivalent to a source that is about or that describes the event. This is a fundamental distinction and a core of WP policy. No number of sources that merely describe an unrelated party referring to or taking advantage of this event can satisfy GNG. SPECIFICO talk 01:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

That's an argument for moving this topic to a different namespace (which, again, I would fully endorse), but it is not in any sense an argument for avoiding this story altogether. You can't just dismiss the coverage here altogether because there are two different topics (Seth Rich's murder and the media furor surrounding Seth Rich's death). That's the editorial equivalent of pointing and shouting, "Wow, is that the Pope!?" and then snatching someones possession up while their back is turned. For the record, I'm not implying bad faith here, I'm just saying that your argument is a non-sequitor. There absolutely is a notable topic here, a story that has gotten robust media coverage. If you are suggesting that we have a discussion about what exactly that topic is, and ponder a move/rename/merge as a result, I agree wholeheartedly. But if you are saying that there is no notability whatsoever here and that we shouldn't cover this topic at all, just because there is discontinuity between the current article name and the subject-matter which our reliable sources focus, I'm afraid I feel that such an argument does not track logically at all, and that you're putting the cart before the horse. Our policies specifically tell us that a topic should not be avoided just because the content needs work; we should rather work to find a solution that approaches the material better. If you would like an article title that more explicitly reflects the "actual" topic here, you can count on me for support! Snow ^{let's rap} 01:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"Furor" is not demonstrated. This thread is about deleting the current article. As to whether some mention of Assange's behavior goes in the article about him or elsewhere, this is not the place for that. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I did not make it a part of the discussion, I only responded to the argument advanced on those grounds. A rename or a merge are absolutely viable options for an AfD discussion, in situations where there is some topic that needs coverage, but the current article name does not comport with an appropriate approach, or when the content just belongs in another article. That's pretty much standard operating process for dealing with those issues, actually, so contemplation of those alternatives is in no remote way antithetical to the purpose of an AfD. So...in short, this is absolutely the place for that. And frankly I know I'm not the only one who is getting a little fatigued with efforts (from some on both "sides" of this debate) to limit or chill perfectly reasonable, rational and civil discussion; I know I'm not the only one, because I've seen three other people reference it in the last day or so of discussion.

Please, I don't want to lapse too sophistic here, but please remember that Wikipedia is a laboratory of ideas, guided by the consensus process. Look, I realize this has been a torturous process, I'm exhausted just by my narrow effort to find the middle ground here in my involvement every few days over the last couple of weeks, and some people have been at it over this for months. I get it. I also agree that it's consumed way more of our editorial time than the topic itself probably justifies. But that's just the reality of Wikipedia sometimes, a source of friction that our project actually relies on for it's health and development. Everybody is still involved here to the degree that they are because they care about the principles of the matter and what they say about our reliability and ethics as an organization that is founded on sharing knowledge. It's fine to disagree, even at extraordinary length sometimes, to hash these things out.

The situation only truly becomes a problem when people begin to lose their cool or, even worse, just do not assume good faith. And there's a bleedin' cloud of that around this AfD, the talk page and user talk concerning this this topic. Please, let's try to keep open minds and at least consider compromise solutions. My feelings are that both "camps" here have a hold on a piece of the right solution to this situation. In any event, we go through this process to vet all reasonable possibilities that could meet everyone's editorial expectations to an extent they can accept. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, just a fact-keeping addendum, I never predicated anything I said upon Assange, so I'm not sure where you are getting the association between my arguments and his behaviour narrowly, which, now that you've raised the issue, I would say is just an element of a larger topic. I hope that clarifies matters. If you don't buy "media furor" as a fair descriptor, that's fine--I wasn't proposing a title, but just referring to the topic obliquely, since everyone seems to have their own opinion of what it "actually" is. But I don't think it is productive to go around in circles add nauseum about what the title should be. The root issue is whether we agree fundamentally that there is an appropriate namespace for some of this content. I'm not at all clear on your position there from your previous comments. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. I think it is pretty well demonstrated on the article talk page, the talk page archive, and the first AfD page, that there are numerous reliable sources that cover the murder. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Actually the numerous reliable sources to which you refer are about Julian Assange talking about Seth Rich's murder and weaving this into his doublespeak drama (pretty much not saying anything = gibberish). If I may paraphrase what this is like: "It might be this guy, but it might not be, then again - maybe - but we never reveal our sources. Thanks for the press coverage, it's really appreciated." Separating this from the real event, of which Seth Rich is the subject, and the murder the event - it/ - renders the topic - "Murder of Seth Rich" - to be not notable. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep This topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and it seems it may continue to get coverage. Clearly a notable event, BLP1E do not apply since the article is not about the person but the murder of said person, which clearly passes the GNG. Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Any recent coverage of Julian Assagne's remarks regurgitates what has already been said in the press during the middle of July. No new information has been added, and new analysis has been forthcoming. And coverage is less and less as we go along. The indexing I produced before, which I didn't invent, simply shows a flatline since sometime in September, after almost no coverage during that month. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Relevent. Nobs01 (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Will the closing admin please be very clear as to why this article should remain in the main space. What I see is (1) a man named Seth Rich who wasn't notable before this event (there was no article on him previously); he is then (2) killed around 4 AM on a DC street, an event that is somewhat common in the district. It obviously received coverage but what is notable here? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Will the closing admin also make some comment on the validity of the methodology of those editors who have, over the last few months, repeatedly deleted on-topic RS content. Unless that issue is addressed, the article cannot be improved and will remain in its current contradictory state - a subject with obvious notability based on reliable sources but which has no content showing that notability actually in the article. The article is not even allowed to mention that the murder remains unsolved because that is, supposedly, "speculation" [48]! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. As others have said, there has been more than enough coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Here are more sources from non-US, mainstream publications: [49], [50], [51], [52] (though this last one could probably dismissed as a passing mention). I find that some pro delete arguments are particularly weak or irrelevant:

• WP:BLP1E – while Seth Rich (for being recently dead) obviously is protected per BLP policy, (a) Seth Rich is not the subject of this article which is about the death and (b) WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.
• WP:1E and WP:CRIME – again this article is not a biography of Seth Rich or even a pseudo-biography. When someone who was non-notable dies and their death has lasting effects, established practice is to create an article about the death (and redirect subject's name to article about the event), see: Death of Freddie Gray, Death of Sandra Bland, Death of Eric Garner, Shooting of Michael Brown, and Shooting of Trayvon Martin (though in this case Trayvon Martin was apparently nominated for deletion in 2013, and survived).
• WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE – these may be relevant arguments in operational content discussion (on the talk page or on the BLP noticeboard), but they are irrelevant in article deletion discussion. And for what it's worth, I think that all the material currently included is completely sourced, neutral, on-topic, and relevant to Seth Rich's notability.

I'm afraid merging is not something that we can or should discuss here for there is almost no content to merge. Mentioning the WikiLeaks reward can't just be included in some random article without explaining the conspiracy context. Politrukki (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Of the other five deaths you mention, four involve black suspects who died at the hands of police or in police custody. The fifth one, Trayvon Martin, was shot by a self-appointed neighbourhood watch for "walking while black and wearing a hoodie". These cases resulted in large demonstrations all over the US; they had and have lasting effects. The notability of these cases is well established, both in media coverage, in politics, and in law enforcement. So what exactly IS the lasting effect of the shooting of Seth Rich whom you seem to consider to be non-notable ("When someone who was non-notable dies …")?
• As for your new sources: I take it you don’t read German, French, and Swedish, and you didn’t get the articles bot-translated? The German and French articles are about Assange/WikiLeaks exploiting the shooting for their purposes; the Swedish article is from a tabloid and simply recaps what Assange said (plus, of course, the Swedish backstory, i.e., the rape accusations). All of them are dated August 10 - 14, i.e., they are old news and do not support your "lasting effect" argument. Maybe the WikiLeaks reward should be mentioned in the WikiLeaks and/or Assange articles, subtitle "Conspiracy mongering"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Your first question (about lasting effect) is very good. Thank you! I did not mean to say that Rich's murder has had left lasting effect (legislative efforts or major political impact), but that it's too early to determine. Like the third paragraph of WP:LASTING says: 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. For instance Michael Brown died on August 9, 2014. Wikipedia article was created on August 11. Was notability established in just two days? I don't think so. We know that notability was established, but we don't know exactly when that happened.

Actually, I wanted to mention WP:PERSISTENCE – which talks about "lasting significance" and which is somewhat related to WP:LASTING – in my previous comment, but decided to omit it for the sake of brevity. As long as murder of Seth Rich remains unsolved, it is likely to receive only limited coverage, but the fact that coverage of death spiked weeks after the incident is at least some sort of indication of lasting significance.

As to your second question, I'm not going to tell you what you should or should not take, but I can tell you what my take is. In the Die Welt article murder of Seth Rich is not the main topic per se, but the article spends at least four paragraphs (183 words) to describe the murder alone. Yes, Expressen is a tabloid, but it is also a mainstream publication that is often cited by other sources without casting any doubt on its reliability. Just because Expressen excels in writing low-effort entertainment articles (and let me remind that there's no reliable source for gossip) doesn't change the fact that the article I linked is typical news story that could be published anywhere. Even though the story focuses on Assange's comments, Rich is mentioned in the lead sentence, so I don't think it would be fair to say that it is plainly a passing mention.

foxnews.com published a story about Assange and WikiLeaks few hours ago and they wrote one paragraph on Rich's murder and I'm afraid we will soon see similar mentions in more reputable sources. Regardless of whether that happens, I think we should heed the advice from previous close: So this topic is probably best revisited a few months later when the election is over and the story's importance can be assessed at more of a distance. Politrukki (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Fox piece doesn't have anything new and was only there as backdrop to something else Assange is now saying. That isn't really ongoing coverage. I note that Fox also used the phrase "conspiracy theories". Interestingly, there was recently an article called something like 'conspiracy theories related to the 2016 US presidential election' that this could have been merged into, but that article has since been deleted by AfD. It's strange that this one persists. Geogene (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

But it is ongoing coverage. It mentions the subject of this article, is dated today, and mentions an event that will take place tomorrow and which will, in all likelihood, generate more coverage that will also mention the article's subject. Unless you can link to the AfD discussion, mentioning a deleted article is a red herring. For example, the article may have been deleted for OR synthesis reasons - and if so its deletion actually could be an argument for the retention of this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It's ongoing coverage of Assange, and a bare restatement of what is already known about this subject. Here are those other AfDs in case you find them useful [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016], [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016]. Geogene (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep I too just noticed the Fox News story seems significant to me unless you're a Hillary Clinton / DNC supporter. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Raquel Baranow: Why would it be insignificant to Clinton supporters? clpo13_(talk) 21:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

From the Fox news story: "Assange also has hinted that deceased DNC staffer Seth Rich may have been a source for WikiLeaks." Implying DNC may have had something to do with the murder? That's my inference. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If there were substance to the allegations, it would be significant. There is no substance, and the existence of the article is WP:PROFRINGE. Actually Raquel Barrow's WP:ASPERSIONS works to substantiate one of my main complaints, that this is just fodder for conspiracy theorists, and therefore should be deleted under WP:NOTNEWS. But it's always unwise to speculate about the politics of your opponents. I would encourage all not to continue it. Geogene (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Funny you mention "conspiracy", in my post above, I was going to mention that WP seems to have a phobia about conspiracies as if they never happen. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually it was the FOX article you cited that called it a "conspiracy theory", which is generally understood to not be an endorsement. And, true that we don't give conspiracy theories equal time with reality-based viewpoints. Geogene (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Just because it's a conspiracy doesn't mean it's necessarily false and not based on reality. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This one is both. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether this "conspiracy theory" is false or not is besides the point. If it has received a lot of coverage, it should probably have its own article. We have articles for Holocaust denial and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Having these articles doesn't necessarily endorse the factuality (or lack of) of either. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

So how do you square that view with the refutation others have voiced here on this page, namely, that those events were in themselves WP-notable whereas Mr. Rich was not? Are you confident your analogy holds water? SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Because there's no meat there, not even enough for a stub. Even if you tried, you'd be writing original research on some mentions in primary sources (newspaper articles). Like I said, we can't just merge it into the dedicated "conspiracy theories related to the 2016 US Presidential election", because that article has already been nuked for lack of notability. Geogene (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I just posted about this discussion on relevant article and WikiProject talk pages, which is appropriate per WP:APPNOTE. Removal of any of these is probably inappropriate per WP:Talk and WP:APPNOTE. Please keep the deletion discussion open in hopes that we can more input from other editors (broadening the deletion discussion). Thank you Steve Quinn (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not think Steve Quinn's 11th hour notifications about this AfD's existence (today being probably the final day the AfD will run), posted on multiple article talk pages and project pages, ([53], [54], [55], [56]) is appropriate. He did not think such notifications necessary when starting the AfD, and he categorized the AfD under "biographical". Based on these recent posts, he considers the subject to also be "organization or product", "society topics", and "web and internet" applicable. Why were those categories not added to the AfD when started? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

From my experience, an AfD closes when activity ceases. Also, "categories" have nothing to do with my posts. If someone wishes to add categories please feel free to do so. There is no specified time limit on my present activities. And let us not forget the fact, my original post on the article talk page two or three days ago was deleted (unbeknownst to me) by an "enthusiastic" editor. So that was essentially interference. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep (but give serious consideration to a rename and/or eventual merge, if the appropriate namespace can be found). By even the most conservative interpretation of WP:GNG this easily meets our community guidelines for notability, with substantial coverage in WP:reliable sources that run the gamut of local, nation, and global press. Reasonable concerns have been raised about not misrepresenting the victim, but that goal is not in any way mutually exclusive with having an article on this notable topic, nor with presenting the whole story of how the murder became caught up in the political spin of the election cycle. We simply need to exercise the utmost care in how we present and attribute the relevant information--which, with the number of eyes the article now has, will be a more sound process. This story is out there, and trying to stifle coverage of it/pretending that's not the reality just will not work, and actually is directly counter-intuitive to the notion of preserving clarity on the topic. Whether your interest is to protect the victim from being maligned or just to present accurate coverage of the topic, the way forward is with a well-crafted, well-sourced, neutral article--not an effort to cull a notable topic, however sordid the facts surrounding it. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

copy/paste of BLP bits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In response to Mr Ernie's comment here, which was difficult to read after I wrote this with no response. So i will ask Mr Ernie more directly yet....

• WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.""

Seth Rich was not a public figure. he was thrust into the public spotlight by Assange's insinuation that a) rich leaked the DNC emails; b) rich was murdered because of that. User:Mr Ernie, please explain how content about Rich's murder does not violate the part of the BLP above. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems – even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

There is zero evidence that Rich actually was the DNC leaker. Assange's insinuation that Rich a) was the DNC leaker and b) was murdered b/c of that, drag him and his family into the shitslinging speculation of election season - after he was actually murdered. Please explain how our article, which is driven by news driven by Assange, does not violate NOTVICTIM. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I did not notice your earlier post as I was not pinged and it was placed above my vote. To respond, it's entirely clear to me how and why Rich is notable, and I do not appreciate your insinuation that this is not clear to me. NOTPUBLICFIGURE doesn't apply here, as the article is not about Rich, but his murder. You're smart enough to know that. AVOIDVICTIM isn't quite applicable for the same reason. Our article doesn't call Rich the leaker, or say that Assange said he was the leaker, or any of that other stuff. What it should state are notable details about the notable murder of a non-notable person. What is also perfectly clear to me is that editors are weaponizing policy to remove items that do not fit into a certain political viewpoint. Everyone participating should ask themselves if they would have the same arguments if the political spectrum here was flipped, and let's be honest - this is a battleground topic with the same editors that are active elsewhere, pushing the same viewpoints on both sides, trying to push a certain political viewpoint, and cherry picking policy to support their viewpoint. I read BLP again, and still do not see that it applies here. This is my last comment on this topic. I'm no longer able to assume good faith for the contributors here on both sides and now my comments drift to editors, not content. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Mr Ernie - (pinging you as you have maybe unwatched) So about "weaponizing policy to remove items that do not fit into a certain political viewpoint."

There are Republican viewpoints on policy matters. There are Democratic viewpoints on policy matters. Republican political strategy exists, Democrat political strategy exists, etc. Politicians actually do bad things sometimes. That is all real world stuff.

This article has nothing to do with "political viewpoints". Nothing.

This article pushes my buttons for three reasons. A) Something I despise, anywhere, is bullshit. B) I care about the quality of political discourse in general. C) I care about the quality of this encyclopedia; I want us to be New York Times quality, not Daily Mail quality.

A) The "link" of this murder to the DNC email leak created by Assange via his interviews and the reward (and all the reward is, is communicating the same garbage as Assange did in his interviews using money as the message) is a trifecta of bullshit that implies that 1) Rich was the leaker and 2) he was murdered because of it and 3) the Clinton machine had him murdered. A trifecta of bullshit. All the coverage in (sadly) reliable sources after August 9th, was driven by this trifecta of bullshit.

B) None of the internet echo chamber garbage about political conspiracy theories makes our country better or helps anything. That garbage is destroying our country - we have so little high quality discourse about actual political viewpoints anymore because the media is full of dogshit-stained maggoty twinkies floating in a sewer like "Seth Rich's Murder".

C) And the fact that this poor schmuck's name is being dragged into politics and his family and friends have to deal with that - because of this garbage - is exactly what AVOIDVICTIM is about. He was a real person. He was actually. fucking. murdered. Imagine he was one of your friends and what an ugly nightmare that alone would be for you. Now add this garbage on top of that. That is where BLP comes in. Your being deaf to that - or even able to acknowledge that - is very hard for me to understand.

What has been "weaponized" here is the robotic mantra "there are reliable sources so we must include it... there are reliable sources so we must include it.....there are reliable sources so we must include it.....there are reliable sources so we must include it" to try to demand the inclusion of horrible fucking bullshit in WP over the discretion that BLP and good sense allows us. Not to mention WP:NOTNEWS, TRIVIA, blah blah blah. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I agree with almost all of what you said. I believe other editors may not have the same honesty with their involvement. Good luck with the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There are few things I despise (since Jytdog brought the subject up) more than fake sanctimoniousness and sentimentality, here presented as an excuse to pov war valid content out of an article. E.L. Wikipedia is a website accessed throughout the world and should have a worldview in all of its articles. And remember, distorting or "weaponising" Wikipedia guidelines to censor or delete just one article is all but certain to rebound back onto other articles with unexpected and unwanted consequences, just like real-world policy distorting does. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

People here always cry "censorship" when they don't get their way. It's tiresome, and just provokes more ill will that will carry over into the next article. Geogene (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

so... bullshit is worldview?  :) Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If I edit in accordance with content policies (and guidelines) then I am a pov warrior? And my mission is to censor material? Wow! Thanks for letting me know - I'm glad someone finally told me! And elaborating on them is being sanctimonious. OK good to know. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.