Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Maryland

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Maryland. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Maryland|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Maryland. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Maryland

[edit]

Luigi Mangione

[edit]
Luigi Mangione (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E; see also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luigi Mangione Launchballer 20:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. EF5 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Deleting will let those in power silence us. 2600:1700:5192:4930:8451:D5CE:E12B:AC93 (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is wholly unnecessary, and it has duplicate scope with Killing of Brian Thompson#Suspect. guninvalid (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As with the MfD, this is probably going to WP:SNOWBALL Delete. Leave it as redirect, if even that. guninvalid (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course, WP:BLP1E clearly states as the third requirement for omitting someone on that basis 3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. and then proceeds to provide examples. We have significant reliable sources, the content in the article is verifiable and the subject of the article, even in these early days, receives consistent ongoing coverage. Little reason to believe this article won't simply continue to expand. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and keep working on the Killing of Brian Thompson article. Reason 1 According to WP:PERPETRATOR, a separate article of someone only known in connection with a crime or trial should not normally be a separate article but may be created "only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." Killing of Brian Thompson currently is 4,107 words, whereas article split criteria is >8,000 words for "May need to be divided or split" per WP:SIZERULE.
Reason 2: WP:PERPETRATOR also does say "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." I do think the subject meets contemporaneous notability, but based on the article size criteria not being met and there being no conviction yet, I do not think there should be an article on this topic yet.
Reason 3: I am also not sure if the historical significance criteria in WP:PERP has been met yet as “Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.” All the reporting on the subject is currently contemporaneous. Maybe the Killing of Brian Thompson article scope could be expanded, or are we not supposed to be putting suspect biographical info there? Wafflefrites (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very clearly notable with the amount of media coverage and large online fanbase- if this were merged into Killing of Brian Thompson then the latter would rapidly become a WP:COAT article. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E Andre🚐 23:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect. Wikipedia's longstanding consensus is not to have a standalone article on a person accused of a crime who has not yet been found guilty. For now, we have not seen either condition met for a standalone article on a perpetrator per WP:CRIM: The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Thompson was not a "renowned national or international figure" prior to his killing, and we are not yet at the point of weighing the "historic significance" of the event. Furthermore, creating this page treads on WP:CRIM's guidance that Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. If/when Mangione is found guilty, this page can come right back. For now, the redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson#Suspect should be restored and protected to enforce this consensus pending a verdict. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dclemens1971 You've quoted quite a bit of WP:CRIME here, but you've missed important parts sadly that make your claim of consensus troubling. In particular, the first passage you quoted (the bit about renowned national or international figures, etc) is only relevant if this is true: Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:. We do, of course, have an "appropriate existing article" (Killing of Brian Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), so that whole bit (and your arguments based on it) is moot. That also includes the "alleged perpetrator" quotation, which is really just a rehash of WP:BLPCRIME.
    If we turn to WP:BLPCRIME then, it states For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. The argument for exclusion falls apart when you consider that Luigi Mangione is definitely a "public figure" and WP:WELLKNOWN with the amount of scrutiny they have received since they were arrested and charged for the killing. Turning our attention back to WP:CRIME, we're left with article size being a potential reason to WP:SPINOUT to a separate article. Killing of Brian Thompson has certainly grown in size in just the past two weeks since the killing took place, and size concerns will only become more significant as more sources and information about Luigi is released in reliable sources. But I'd argue keeping the biography in the event article are WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP concerns: certainly some discussion of the alleged killer is relevant in the event article, but there will be concerns if his biography expands to things beyond those relevant to the event itself (and certainly if things aren't proportional to the overall event). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice against recreating at a later date if Killing of Brian Thompson gets too long or something changes to justify a separate article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - absolute given. notable given the coverage around him. More coverage is focused on him than the target. 97.115.189.88 (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Guy is famous enough by now. Then again, Dclemens1971 makes a valid point. The thing is that it is only sometimes that we get really picky about our guidelines and it's especially so in the case of crime/criminal, and I don't really see the point of that pickiness. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get the impulse to go WP:IAR here, but the redirect both meets informational needs and upholds the consensus guidelines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My main reason is because of WP:BLPCT. BLPs are contentious topics per arbitration enforcement committee. With contentious topics, you must “comply with all applicable policies and guidelines”. Having come from over a year of editing in another CT area on Wikipedia, I definitely know that Ignore All Rules does not apply to contentious topics. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.-🐦DrWho42👻 02:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per Dclemens1971. There is no need yet for an article about the suspect. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't have to add every detail about him that the media reports. The Killing of Brian Thompson limits narrowly what we can say about the suspect, because we are only including things related to the crime and his alleged involvement. And that's how it should be. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Chessrat's reasoning. Kyleroo (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Idek mann (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject has received a lot of attention for his suspected role in killing that CEO. However, even outside of that event, he has also received much attention that focuses on him solely as an individual. Articles on Mangione's political views, his background, and also how the populace has responded to his actions. Although one could argue that recentism comes into play, I don't think the interest surrounding him will necessarily die out; especially with a documentary on the way. I guess we could wait until mid-January and see whether he's still relevant or not.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have an article on Dzokhar Tsarnaev and Derek Chauvin, who are about as BLP1E as you can get. Mangione has received international media attention, and has become the subject of a notable antiestablishment political movement: [7]. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 16:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This event is not remotely comparable to the murder of George Floyd, nor the Boston Marathon bombing. Also worth nothing both of those individuals were found guilty in highly publicised, discussed and protested trials. MB2437 22:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect (at this time) to Killing of Brian Thompson as this is all he is notable for, he does not have independent notability, note as well, he has not yet been found guilty, so he may not even be notable for thisSlatersteven (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of attention in the media. We have articles for even obscure topics, this as an internet meme is notable, let alone the crime side of it. Bedivere (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is helpful in knowing Luigi's life up to the incident and to help understand why he killed the CEO. Rager7 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that justification is that we do not know if he killed the CEO. He has not been found guilty. Moreover, we do not know his motivations. This page simply allows people to assume those things and make implications. Clear violation of policy. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be very careful with your wording. Wikipedia cannot say he killed anyone until a court of law says so. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Eadweard Muybridge “shot and killed Major Harry Larkyns” and was never convicted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sheer amount of media attention he's received is enough to justify this in my opinion. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mangione was something of a folk hero even before he was identified, with look-alike contests. Despite the fact that he hasn't been convicted, his life apart from the (alleged) killing has been subject to considerable coverage in reliable sources. He meets the GNG. Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He has generated this news coverage, look alike contests, "folk hero" status as you say, etc. solely because of his status as a suspect/accused in the killing. That's the definition of WP:BLP1E. I have no doubt there will be a future article on Mangione, but as long as he's not pled guilty or been convicted, he should be covered as part of the alleged crime. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not though.
    • Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event - as Chicdat mentioned, we have articles on Derek Chauvin and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. That's because sources discuss Chauvin's and Tsarnaev's lives more broadly - just as they have discussed Mangione's life more broadly.
    • The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual - Mangione has become a folk hero. Even if they were acquitted, they're unlikely to fade into obscurity.
    • The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented - Thompson's murder has become significant in way many other murders are not. NY is planning to create a special line for CEOs who feel unsafe. And Mangione has been charged with the murder now, so his role appears to be substantial.
    Guettarda (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a trout to the nom for completely skipping over the part of BLP1E that requires "3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Obviously, BLP1E does not apply to this person, who had a substantial and well-documented role in a significant event. Even if he's not convicted, he is notable as a suspect. Passes WP:GNG by a mile with sustained international news coverage. Shouldn't be merged with the article about the murder itself, as the biography of the suspect would overwhelm the article about the murder. Levivich (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have an article for the two would-be Trump assassins. Luigi is such an infamous guy at this point, he definetally deserves his own article. KILLGOESE (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of the rationales cited for deletion no longer apply to Luigi Mangione. As noted by others. WP:BLP1E allows for the article per criterion #3 (the event is significant and his role in it is central and well-documented). He has become too famous/notorious for WP:BLPCRIME to apply, whether found guilty or not, he is already a notable person. Sources are, for example, discussing his celebrity/folk hero status - [8][9][10][11][12][13]. This article [14] for example says that his popularity has already far eclipsed any of the would-be Trump assassins who are not household names (and those two persons have their own articles). WP:PERPETRATOR also permits this article through perpetrator criterion #2 - the presumed motivation is unusual and notable and has sparked wider discussion about the health care system in the US. I see no reason to delete or redirect it. Hzh (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At this point in time Mangioni and the killing have both become far more than even the normal suspects/crimes that are notable for Wikipedia. The second and third prongs of BLP1E would seem to no longer bar creation. We still have to be very careful to not presume guilt per WP:BLPCRIME, but a standalone article, given the overwhelming amount of sources, including many which delve into information that would not be suitable on the killing page, is probably warranted. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and also as per guidelines at WP:CRIME which state: "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." In my view this article has been created too soon. Mangione has not yet been convicted in court. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable. He will definitely have long term significance. Current coverage is massive. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As many others have said above me, this massive coverage makes him notable enough to qualify for an article.
Though I do think the article doesn't currently have much to offer that isn't already, or couldn't be placed in in the article on the murder itself FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dorsey Road Warehouse

[edit]
Dorsey Road Warehouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable logistics warehouse for the National Security Agency. The NSA likely has hundreds of such warehouses to store equipment, most of which do not pass WP:GNG, like this one. Longhornsg (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Mangione

[edit]
Louis Mangione (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I fail to see the notability of the father of the shooter in the Brian Thompson killing. Being the father alone does not grant such notability, and the enterprises Louis Mangione is head of were also created the same time and day this article was, by the same user. The known for is also a bit egregious, "known for being the heir to the Mangione family fortune". I don't think much of anyone before two days ago even knew the Mangione family fortune existed. Réunion! 08:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is irrelevant who created the article, why, or when. What matters is whether the subject is notable and whether there are reliable sources attesting to that. Based on that argument, you could have also nominated Nicholas Mangione for deletion, but you opted not to. Prior to recent events, Louis Mangione was mentioned by the Baltimore Sun here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and by the Washington Post here, here, here, here, here, and here. He served as Vice President of Mangione Family Enterprises for decades and is now the head of the Mangione family fortune. All of that demonstrates his notability in the local business community. His son's recent actions simply shine further coverage on the family, which has been covered amply by the Baltimore and Washington, D.C. press for decades. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bohemian Baltimore.-🐦DrWho42👻 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete information? 2600:1702:540:6BF0:4403:38E5:2AA8:F46C (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:NOTEVERYTHING Geschichte (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I went through every single one of Bohemian Baltimore's sources, and not a one of them is about Mangione; they are all about real-estate controversies loosely involving a Mangione property, with one or two brief quotes from Mangione sprinkled in. As for the references in the article, references 2 and 8 are the only ones I'd consider SIGCOV, and they are only talking about this individual in the context of the shooting. The article is a hybrid WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED violation. Clearly this individual is not notable beyond the events of the past week. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WeirdNAnnoyed - Wikipedia:Notability says that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: So he's a buisnessman with a son that says he did bad things, not proven in court yet. If this was brought up to AfD six months ago, we'd delete it. Same reasoning applies, his business enterprise is not notable, he's only being talked about because of his son. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the analysis by WeirdNAnnoyed and my own at the sources, which do not include significant coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — It is irrelevant who created the article, why, or when. I'd say when the article was created is critical here. When other editors invoke "the sum total of human knowledge" in reference to this project and I poke holes in their arguments large enough to drive a 747 through, there's a reason why it's met with denial and suppression. There's far more to "the sum total of human knowledge" than parroting the agenda of the legacy media and writing about little else. If BB's laundry list of sources going back decades really meant anything, then I shouldn't be looking at an article that's only about 12 hours old. Wikipedia repeatedly shows its lack of credibility by newly creating biographies as a reaction to the subject's death, when the real world saw the person as notable decades ago. In addition to the WP:WHATEVER invoked by WeirdNAnnoyed above, there's also WP:COATRACK. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WeirdNAnnoyed. I also did my own research on Newspapers.com to see if there were any articles from The Baltimore Sun about Mangione himself, as there were about his father, and could only find articles about his proposed real-estate developments, in which he is mentioned one or two times and not as the primary subject. Y2hyaXM (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The only reason the family or family friend has requested deletion is because they’re worried about their reputation. The public should know about anyone running a “family enterprise” …especially when their ultra-privileged offspring murders a man who came from a rural, working-class family and worked for over 20 years to make CEO with a bachelors degree from a state school. If that isn’t ironic enough, the CEO made far less money than his own parents. There is a nation-wide conversation about wealth right now, and the Mangione’s shouldn't get to opt out. 2600:1008:B218:2C3F:F0FA:33BB:D96D:23E5 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Mangiones 2600:1008:B218:2C3F:F0FA:33BB:D96D:23E5 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That man wasn't known a week ago, and appears to have a rather ho-hum business career, that's not quite notable for here. Oaktree b (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it funny how here I'm accused of being related to the Mangiones. I have absolutely no relation to him, nor do I know any of his family. He is simply not relevant enough to be on the site, as users WeirdNAnnoyed and RadioKAOS have articulated far better than I can. Réunion! 05:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Well, he just hired a posh, well-known NY attorney to represent his son who murdered someone. I say he’s about to be more notable than he was before. Perhaps we should give it a few weeks. 108.160.192.62 (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Bohemian Baltimore. He clearly has has significant coverage. However, there is precedent from 2007 that this article could still be deleted to protect individuals only tangentially connected with a major crime; the subject made a direct appeal to Jimbo Wales, and then not only was the article deleted and salted, but the two AfDS were memory holed. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oaktree b. This likely fails notability. Especially as most, if not all notability, is because of Luigi - not Louis or his career. Synorem (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EF5 15:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, several reliable sources cover Louis. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bohemian Baltimore, he's notable for reasons other than his son killing some big CEO. KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Idek mann (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was on the fence about this one, but as time goes on there are more sources being added that support his relevancy outside of his son.Thief-River-Faller (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Yes, there are reliable sources, and what they reliably show is that he's a reasonably successful business person of no particular note except for that son of his, whose notoriety he does not inherit. And yes, the timing does matter, because two decades of lack of interest in him here is already evidence for his lack of notability. Look if the Sun or someone were to put up a profile of him that would be a stronger argument, but when you compare his article to his father's, the paucity here is really very obvious. Mangoe (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Bohemian Baltimore OsageOrange (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is a lot of voting going on here (both ways) but little actual consideration of the sources. Bohemian Baltimore gave just two sources: The Baltimore Sun (which irritatingly presents different content in Europe to what Americans see, requiring a bit of trickery to review) and the Washington Post. Multiple articles from a single source count as one towards GNG, but that is moot because, as has already been pointed out by WeirdNAnnoyed, none of these sources count towards GNG, because none have significant coverage on Mangione. I'll take just one example: The idea is to preserve the golf courses and develop a mixed-use community around it with as much green space as possible," said Louis Mangione, "[etc.]"[18]. WP:SIGCOV requires that coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail The topic here is Mangione, and this coverage does not address him as the topic at all. Sources are required to give us something to write the page from. There is literally nothing there that we can say about Mangione. That source provides us nothing at all. It is not SIGCOV. And no, we can't use his spoken words because those are primary and not independent. Bohemian Baltimore quotes the guidance that the mention does not need to be the main topic of the source material and that is true, but it must still be significant. There is nothing we can say about Mangione from these sources. They do not meet GNG. None of them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Run of the mill business person, does not meet WP:GNG, notablity is not inherited. Orange sticker (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sirfurboy’s reasoning. While Louis Mangione has popped up in many Baltimore/DC newspaper articles over the years, the articles typically only provide the bare minimum amount of information about Mangione needed for the reader to understand his relevancy to the main article topic. These are trivial mentions, not significant coverage. The only meaningfully in-depth coverage about Mangione comes from articles about his son and father (who does actually have some significant coverage pre-dating the shooting). I don’t believe that a large number of trivial mentions and some inherited notability is enough to meet GNG. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per @Bohemian Baltimore AverageWikiContributor (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put this as a reply. AverageWikiContributor (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS* Can someone delete this? I don't know how; AverageWikiContributor (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your duplicate per your request and left this one in place as requested here [19]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Proposed deletions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Maryland&oldid=1263526581"