Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bank robbers and robberies

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of bank robbers and robberies

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

Random list of bank robberies or robbers from around the globe. The sole criteria is that is was a bank robbery or robbed a bank. No other defined criteria. Appears to an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of events that lacks a clear WP:LSC and is overbroad. Could work better as a category. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and convert to category. I agree that a list of the criteria "robbed a bank" is over-broad. cnzx (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think what the nominator means is to narrow it to List of bank robbers, as that's the focus of the existing Category:Bank robbers. Otherwise I'm struggling to understand the rationale of either the nominator or the commenter. postdlf (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant at all. Merely saying "list of bank robberies" is overbroad. That's like a "list of people". Bank robberies occur dozens (perhaps hundreds) of times every day in the US alone. Most don't even make the front page of the local newspaper, let alone be encyclopedic. As it stands, this list would include a bank robbery that netted $30 million and a bank robbery that netted a $20 bill. In addition, there are entries that don't actually belong. Robbing an armored car isn't a bank robbery. Neither is a hotel or breaking into the bank at night. If there's already a category of bak robbers, why do we need a list of them? The rational is simple: This is an indiscriminate list of crimes (many not even banks) and there's no real criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed a lot of non-robberies or non-bank robberies. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria for nearly every list of people, on top of whatever specific facts about those people that we're focusing on, is "has or merits an article". This is routinely enforced by editing and demonstrated consensus, and it's merely a matter of naming convention that we don't include the self-referential word "notable" in the list. In this way such lists should have the exact same inclusion criteria as their complementary categories. Hope this helps clear up the confusion. postdlf (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't clear up anything. First, you have a list of people and events. Why are we running a list with 2 entirely different things? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my first comment. Do you or do you not want this just to list bank robbers? Or do you instead want it split into two separate lists? Note we also have plenty of entries in Category:Bank robberies, so separate lists would seem appropriate, and then whether the robbery list includes incidents that do not merit individual articles or is limited only to articles would be a matter for editors to decide. If your answer is "neither", that's what I have not seen a clear rationale for, because your comments seem focused on the current state of the hybrid list rather than explaining why there's nothing that could be done to improve/develop the content, and otherwise contrary to WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say that we make it a list of bank robberies and we're including ones that don't merit individual entries. It will probably become a never ending dumping ground of local robberies that turns this into a newspaper. How would a list of bank robbers help? Again, a list of every non-notable person who robbed a bank. I don't oppose a category, but I see no merit in this list at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to both problems would be to limit them to entries that have articles only and remove any that are nonnotable. This is standard practice. The annotations and sources already in the article also illustrate the merit of the list above and beyond the categories, and show the potential for other entries in this list. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does that accomplish anything that a category doesn't? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are lists like List of Indian rail accidents, Islamophobic incidents, which includes lots of incidents that fail actual criteria of lists. This list either seems as good or just better. Capitals00 (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a lot like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG and listing of the items cannot be really questioned. I would support merge only if there is an article concerning the bank robberies but that is not proposed yet. Capitals00 (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of items can't be questioned? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, whether split or maintained as a joint list, as indexes of articles per WP:LISTPURP and complements to the categories per WP:NOTDUP. The nominator's complaints seem to come down only to fixable issues addressed through normal editing, and AFD is not cleanup. See WP:ATD and WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. Any entries that don't actually qualify should be removed, just as they would be from the category. And whether this includes verifiable bank robberies that don't merit standalone articles is also an issue for editing and consensus to determine, and routine to enforce if limited only to notable entries. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to work on fixing it? Or just be one of those that votes to keep and expects others to do it? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We do have a Category:Bank robberies, but this list is a lot more complete. No, we can not convert the list into the category because not all notable robberies currently have pages about them. Having such list helps to develop new content. My very best wishes (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of entries that weren't bank robberies or bank robbers that got removed, I'd say it's more a dumping ground. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you are telling this after removing a lot of content clearly described in sources as "robberies" [1]? This is hardly an argument in favor of deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did it after actually reading the source, reading what the wikipedia article linked in the lead calls a robbery and applying it. If you read the article, you'll see it was a cyber-attack in the first one, not a robbery. Most of the sources don't stupidly use the word "robbery", a violent crime, to describe a computer crime. Just because you glanced at a title and made assumptions doesn't make my actions wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NLIST. The amount of notable bank robberies/robbers is not unmanageable for a list. Deletion is not cleanup - nor is it the place to address the finer points of common English in relation to legal English in regards to robbery, theft, and burglary (whether the legal or common English are grounds for inclusion - should be noted in the list's inclusion criteria).Icewhiz (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask you what has not been answered yet: What does this list accomplish that a category does not? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A list allows to group/sort according to a coherent theme as well as add brief text (e.g. a line) next to each item. This allows browsing the whole thing in a more friendly manner than a category. I recently supported removal of a WWI connected persoon list as the scope was so wide it would be an unmanageable amount of entries - this is not the case here.Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as previously pointed out, qualifies under NLIST Thalium (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Bank robbers and Category:Bank robberies. Also keep per WP:HEY, as the article was significantly cleaned up after the nomination for deletion occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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