Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Vukovich

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Vukovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP1E. Per WP:CRIMINAL, "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article", unless "the motivation/execution of the crime... is a well-documented historic event". In this case, none of the reliable sources suggest any historic, social or otherwise serious significance to his 4-day robbery spree from 2016 [1].

This academic book co-authored by Vukovich in which he was "given a chance to tell" his own story alongside 7+ felons is not secondary, independent of the subject or primarily about him. At best, this case could become one sentence at Vigilantism in the United States#Other_episodes. Badbluebus (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, United States of America, and Alaska. Badbluebus (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There are also some serious BLP concerns here. Only a few sources in the article look reputable, others look unreliable or WP:SENSATIONAL such as WP:NYPOST, "Talk Murder True Crime Blog", WP:USERGENERATED true crime publisher "vocal media", pseudoscientific horoscope news website "yourtango", WP:FOXNEWS, fringe news website with a "paranormal" series "thoughtnova", fringe blog about "horror stories, conspiracy theories, Murder Mysteries, Alien Life" buggedspeace, citizen vigilante blog geordiechasers). The "hit list" section, that accuses three living people of sexual crimes, is greatly sourced by unreliable sources such as the aforementioned. Badbluebus (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. With regard to WP:CRIMINAL, the key word here is separate article. We don't have an article on the crime so that doesn't apply, this is not a "separate article" of anything.

I'm not going to vote keep because all the later sources are either bad (all that's interesting, thoughtnova or those weird seo article type things) or just "police said this" or his sentencing announcement without further commentary which isn't great. Just want to correct that. The least bad source is the Anchorage Daily Times ones but overall the sourcing here is very low quality. Not going to vote delete (yet) either because I haven't done a before check for better sources outside the page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About that, the guideline says that "Where there are no appropriate existing articles [about the crime itself], the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies", citing the standards about historical significance or victim relevance. So I believe it applies to this page. Badbluebus (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the second criterion of the perpetrator section seems to read more along it being determined by "sustained coverage of the event" dedicating focus to the role of the person, or the "motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" (which this probably does qualify under if the coverage was better), as demonstrated by sigcov. The coverage here is not good but I still disagree with the way the nomination is phrased.

After having done a before check, I vote delete because there is not a lot useful here. I found a 1 paragraph mention in an academic study on the unintended affects of the sex offender registry. Theoretically this could be an interesting, brief note in an article about that but we don't have an applicable one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Coverage in the New York Post in the article already and in local Alaska media [2], I don't think it's enough coverage to build an article with. Would like to have seen better sources like ABC or CNN or the like. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I went through and removed most, if not all, of the fringe sources. I didn't touch the text. This makes it easier (to me) to see if there are enough good sources for the article. This leaves a lot of the content unsourced. I may cycle back to !vote. Lamona (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2024 (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.