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. The issue, in terms of policy and practice, is whether this is merely a news event or significant enough for an article. That's a matter of editorial judgment, and numerically, the outcome is a tie. If one discounts opinions that are not based on the topic's coverage in reliable sources, but consist of conspiracy-theorizing (PeacePeace, DestroyerofDreams, JGabbard) blocked low-editcount accounts (TradingJihadist) or mere votes (184.90.237.3), then one gets a slight majority to delete, but nothing approaching consensus. 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.  Sandstein  18:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Seth Rich[edit]

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)

There is no tangible connection asserted in reliable sources between this event and the DNC leaks. It should therefore be treated as just another (non-notable) murder. StAnselm (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

The murder of a DNC worker at the time it happened is obviously a notable murder. Moreover, the implications of the actions of WikiLeak in this matter with the posting of a reward for information in the context of danger to whistle-blowers who give information to WikiLeaks, certainly raises the notability of the killing of Seth Rich. I can see no benefit to censoring the article. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

• @PeacePeace: Actually your statement is contrary to the most fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. Notability is a test that relates to verification in Reliable independent sources. No event in the real world is inherently notable. The Wikileak nonsense is orthogonal to the topic of this article. Put it in the article about Assange or an article about conspiracy theories if you wish. Your view on this is contrary to policy and as such it will be disregarded by whoever closes this AfD. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NCRIME WP:NOTNEWS--Savonneux (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Explain how it doesn't meet those guideslines. My comment below explains why it meets the guidelines. As it is, your comment is not worth much. TradingJihadist (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Explain how: you are the article creator, this is your "first" article, first edit actually (second was to nominate it for DYK), and how I'm supposed to read and respond to things that weren't even posted when I made my comments. Since we're all demanding things here...--Savonneux (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Change the name of the article to Seth Rich Based on the reliable sources available specifically discussing the individual and the circumstances surrounding his death, I think Mr. Rich meets the guidelines for a WP:BLP. Additional information and editing to the page as it stands, coupled with a change in the title of the page would be sufficient to keep the article. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Coverage mainly about self-serving Wikileaks statements irrelevant to the topic. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How would you support your statement of non-notability in light of all of the national and international media coverage? And even if WikiLeaks' statements or stance were "self-serving", latching onto conspiracy theory as others have said, or otherwise wrong or objectionable in some way, that just means that the outcome of the investigation could affect WikiLeaks' reputation as well as the DNC and the Clinton campaign. It seems to me that this makes the murder even more notable. --Joel7687 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This crime has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. If you disagree, please find RS that link the crime to the campaign. The question has nothing to do with editors' opinions, it is about RS references. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable news sources have described statements made by Julian Assange about Seth Rich as implying that Rich was the source of the DNC email leaks. That makes his death under suspicious circumstances (short by a "robber" who didn't take anything) notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DestroyerofDreams (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note this account, although created in 2007, has only 25 edits prior to this comment. I'm sorry but this looks like a sleeper sock account. The !vote should be discounted accordingly. (Also in this case that is NOT a reliable sources).

Assange is not a reliable source for this and neither is Fox, and we don't publish "implied" facts per BLP. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assange is not a reliable source regarding the identity of his own organization's sources?

As for Fox News, that was just an example; many reputable news organizations covered the same story, as listed in comments below. DestroyerofDreams (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Fox News segment also reported that the police have reported there is no known connection between Seth Rich's death and his job at the DNC. Even the interviewer takes the position that this was a botched robbery. Assange in this segment did not present any evidence, was obviously speculating, and using innuendo to imply that Rich was one of his sources. Even if Rich really was one of his sources, no connection has been established between his death and that he was some sort of whistle-blower. Instead, police evidence points to a botched mugging or botched robbery. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No policy-based reason has been given by the nominator, except vague and easily refuted assertion of "non-notable". This incident has received a large amount of coverage for a month now, from the time of his death to the recent WikiLeaks/Assange statements, with dozens of articles in such outlets as The Daily Telegraph [1], The Independent [2], The Washington Post [3], Sky News [4], ABC News [5], Washington Times [6], CBS News [7], and so on. There is a lengthy and detailed Snopes article on the theories surrounding his death [8]. It's fairly obvious that this death meets the notability requirements. What people think of this death and the theories/circumstances surrounding it, which appears to be a key part of opposition to the article and its contents, is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that this incident has received plenty of detailed coverage in numerous reliable sources. Therefore someone needs to show that the coverage is not detailed enough, the sources are poor, or there are very few sources, but it's pretty clear that no-one is able to do that. TradingJihadist (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if these references were to establish notability, they would be establishing notability of a conspiracy theory not about a crime or a real world individual. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. The sources cover a range of topics, from the killing, facts about Rich and his work, the theories and speculation, WikiLeaks' involvement, etc. TradingJihadist (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP articles are about a topic -- they don't "cover a range of topics" That's the whole point. It's WP:SYNTH and for this and other reasons it violates WP:BLP. Please review the pages at those links. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above editor who is the creator of the article was indefed for WP:NOTHERE Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even if Rich and his death would otherwise be non-notable, there is extensive discussion, including in numerous mainstream media stories, about whether he was the source of the DNC leak that led to the DNC chair stepping down. WikiLeaks has offered a $20,000 reward for information, which they do not do for most murders. This is more than just another murder, even if it does later turn out that the events would not have been notable if the circumstances had been known from the beginning. --Joel7687 (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"even if it does later turn out " - this is WP:CRYSTALBALLING. We do not know what will "later turn out" and since this is an article about a recently deceased person (so BLP still applies. It also applies since this has repercussions for the guy's family) we err on the side of caution. IF "it later turns out" that there was a significant link between WikiLeaks and Rich THEN this article can be created etc. For now, BLP says "be cautious". So it should be deleted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how WP:CRYSTALBALLING applies. The event has happened, the media coverage has happened, the WikiLeaks reward offer has happened. I think that all of this combined is notable already, and the possible future developments that I was speculating about are developments that might make murder itself seem less notable, even if it is now at the center of a larger set of events. --Joel7687 (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joel7687, what you say is certainly true about those things happening. But to use language like "even if it does later turn out" opens yourself up to attack by unprincipled editors who will latch on to anything in order to unleash a torrent of acronyms - even though anyone can read your comment and interpret what it means and know that it has nothing to do with "CRYSTALBALLING". TradingJihadist (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NCRIME. Also see WP:BLP1E. IF there was substantial indication of a link to the Wikileaks nonsense then maybe. But there isn't and this article's purpose seems to be just to fan the flames of conspiracy theories. (Also, I'll repeat my earlier comment, that a brand new account with the username "TradingJihadist", knows precisely how to create a brand new article, nominate it for DYK and then navigate DYK criteria and process. Obviously not a brand new user.) Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of coverage in reliable sources. Interesting mystery about what the role of Wikileaks is all about. In any event, Hillary Clinton has specifically and publicly referred to Rich's murder in connection with her support of tighter gun control regulations.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many murders Clinton has referred to in talking about gun control. Surely that doesn't make them notable. It's a trivial, passing mention, not significant coverage. StAnselm (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps reliable sources should have treated it that way, but they didn't. For example, the Washington Post devoted an entire article to it: Hermann, Peter. "Hillary Clinton invokes name of slain DNC aide Seth Rich in calling for gun control", Washington Post (July 12, 2016). When these things hit home, politicians react more forcefully.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Volunteer Marek's logic above. --Krelnik (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Volunteer Marek. It's just non notable crime. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly notable due to the amount of coverage and conspiracy theories surrounding it. Rossbawse (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the conspiracy theories are the main topic not Mr. Rich's tragic outcome. Clear heads must prevail on Wikipedia. This means avoiding getting caught up in the drama contained in a relatively short news cycle. This will probably fade in a couple of days anyway WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT --- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, a lot of the coverage is due to the conspiracy theories, but even without the intrigue this would deserve its own page as a prominent unsolved murder. Relisha Rudd deserves her own page, too. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Volunteer Marek, also fails the 10 year test. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NCRIME and WP:CRYSTALBALLING. I think User:Volunteer Marek and User:SPECIFICO sum it up nicely Valeince (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this horseshit per WP:NCRIME and WP:BLP1E. No policy-based reason has been advanced by the SPAs for trying to keep a fledgling conspiracy theory afloat through Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:BLP1E, it's true that the recently-deceased are sometimes covered if the article includes "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime". I'm not sure that applies here given lack of gruesomeness and lack of suicide (he was shot in the back). Even if BLP1E does apply, Seth Rich is gone so he will not remain a low-profile person, and in any event the sources indicate the murder and Hillary Clinton's speech about it are significant, and Rich's role in his own death was of course substantial and is well-documented. As for WP:NCRIME, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, and there's lots of media coverage here. Chandra Levy seems analogous.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the family has been begging people to stop spreading conspiracy theories and publicizing his death [9], [10], [11]... yeah, BLP1E applies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, as I said at BLPN, let's keep the conspiracy theories out. That doesn't require article deletion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep the conspiracy theories out he is a one time victim of a crime and per WP:BLP1E If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. So it actually does require article deletion.--Savonneux (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even without mentioning conspiracy speculation, there is wide coverage in reliable sources because Hillary Clinton spoke about Rich in a speech, because of the very unusual bounty offered by Wikileaks, because of the political nature of Rich's employment, because of his young age, et cetera. What about Chandra Levy?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF The prolific number of questionable biographies is actually something of a perennial thing at AfD.--Savonneux (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Rich is gone so he will not remain a low-profile person Logic, how does it work? That's less a crystal ball argument than it it is a non sequitur. In any case, this is a single event of no proven impact, your Wikilawyering aside, and Wikipedia has no obligation to help conspiracy theorists and political partisans in their propaganda efforts. ----

• Keep per all the other arguments. There is lots of discussion about it that make it seem notable, even if they are mostly conspiracy theory-themed. But we must be careful about how we treat this article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Parsley Man (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and change name to Seth Rich per above. 184.90.237.3 (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this until more details are known. This is news, more information about which could develop soon, and any deletion should be postponed for a while as per WP:RAPID. Annihilan 16:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, making arguments like "Keep until more details are known" is WP:CRYSTALBALL and it's just not sufficient reason to keep, especially for a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Rich was an alleged source of some leaks, that is not enough to make him notable. It also involves lots of speculation, and nothing can be reliably sourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per arguments articulated by Volunteer Marek. Can always add it later when sources have more to say. Lipsquid (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is absurd to say that it is not notable, being a member of the DNC murdered when he was murdered. The reward money offered from different sources makes it notable. Notability is obvious from the Google & YouTube hits, also from the demands to delete it here -- why would anyone care about a non-notable topic? Every demand for deletion is a notability. And an outcry of "Strong Delete" indicates even more notability. And keep the name, for it is the murder (in life context) that especially makes it more notable. "“If someone is gunned down in our national capital, we ought to have a pretty passionate interest in knowing why,” said [Newt] Gingrich. “And if it clearly wasn’t a mugging and it wasn’t for money, what was it for?”(PeacePeace (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Every demand for deletion is a notability. I hadn't seen that one before. So now we can't ever delete anything. Geogene (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A request or suggestion for deletion is one thing, emotional or insistent demand for deletion with lots of spilled ink, is a different matter. As in this case, evidence of notability. For something allegedly unnotable, there is a lot of noting going on. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I had no idea what you're talking about, until I looked at your contributions, and noticed that this is your very first AfD. This is understandable. Geogene (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Well, Geogene, indeed this is my first; I had no idea that the way you persuaded other editors was to call the other POV "horseshit" (as above) and to throw around straw-man talking-point arguments like "conspiracy theory." (PeacePeace (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

WP:♠ WP:QUACK this isnt kindergarten, also that was Calton. You've analysed everyone's motives have you? Quite a feat.--Savonneux (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, it is impossible to know the secret motives of any particular person. But motives aside, whoever makes a decision on this article should consider 1) whether or not any proof has been given of "non-notability" as opposed to evidence for notability and 2) whether the "conspiracy theory" mantra/talking-point is not actually a straw-man argument. For does the article state that the death was the result of a conspiracy? I don't recall anyone claiming that; and if not, one may well ask whether or not the repetition of the expression "conspiracy theory" be a straw-man argument and off topic; as the question is supposed to be that of notability, not of conspiracy theory. (PeacePeace (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Calton called the article horseshit, he didn't call an editor or a viewpoint horseshit. Nothing wrong with that. PeacePeace, if you want to have a long life on WP, I suggest you bone up on policy and seek guidance at WP:TEAHOUSE. It gets better. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just a reminder WP:BLP1E would not apply to this article because the article is about THE event (murder) not a biography. Why we have articles on the events of Murder of JonBenét Ramsey and Suicide of Amanda Todd but not on the person, they would most certainly not pass the one event rule but the event passes GNG. Right wingers are using this as a conspiracy theory but that alone is not a case for deletion either infact all their coverage adds on to passing GNG which is the ONLY criteria for a event. GuzzyG (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BDP The only exception would be for people who have recently died...has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime You could attribute any specific event tangentially related to the US Presidential Election as notable because they are all covered by every news outlet in the US until the "next big thing" happens. That's why it's called the "news cycle." Go to the Al Jazeera website and look for articles on this (I already did [12] ), that should give you an idea of just how notable this is in terms of Life, the universe, and everything--Savonneux (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point about going to the Al Jazeera site - showing that this event has no significant impact; it is merely fodder for the news cycle because it is a presidential election year, and because now WikiLeaks has offered a reward (oh my!). To further demonstrate the lack of significance, I cannot find a New York Times article covering this event. The only thing all this drama in the press demonstrates is Julian Assange is as famous as a rock star -- not that he or anyone else can give credibility to anything other than the police strongly believe this was mugging (robbery) gone bad. And this was the fourth of such recent muggings in the area. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something about Al Jazeera that makes it particularly accurate as a barometer of notability? There are zillions of news outlets and sources other than Al Jazeera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on seeming to miss the point---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. The death is notable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a rationale for your !vote, not just make an assertion. WP:ILIKEIT is not an argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: A simple assertion of notability is indeed a rationale. Not a particularly good rationale, but it's not WP:ILIKEIT. He's asserting that it meets the policy requirements for inclusion, which is valid grounds to keep. He should provide an explanation for why he feels that way, but he doesn't need to. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all that has been said above. I see no reason to repeat the same arguments. I see no reason to keep re-inventing the wheel. In my estimation, it's notable. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The murder has received ongoing mainstream news coverage, particularly since Wikileaks provided a reward and criticism of them has been reported. Furthermore, mainstream media have also covered the "conspiracy theories" that Rich leaked the DNC emails. Certainly allegations of a conspiracy involving the DNC have come from fringe sources, but the guideline says, "To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It has. There is no requirement that mainstream sources take the allegations seriously, just that they report them. TFD (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TFD - the conspiracy theories are one topic and the shooting of Mr. Rich is another topic. It is the conspiracy theories that have received significant coverage and Mr. Rich's tragic outcome is a side event - that the police believe is merely a robbery gone bad. It is apples and oranges and conflating these is WP:SYN. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would justify an article, it's just that the topic would be "alleged conspiracy theories about the murder" rather than the murder itself. BTW the police have not ruled anything out in their investigation. TFD (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TFD - I'm not sure what you mean about the police not ruling anything out. They have been strongly backing the "mugging (robbery) gone bad" theory because of their experience (they know what one looks like), and they have reported what appears to be defensive wounds on Seth's knuckles. They also reported this is the fourth such mugging in the area. They have not given credibility to theories that Julian Assange and internet chatter are speculating about. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If anyone wants to look at Google Trends it's following the news cycle perfectly [13] first there's a blip when it initially happened in July, then wikileaks offered a reward a few days ago and it went through the roof, then they ran the stories about people reacting to the news that wikileaks had offered a reward, and now it's plummeting again. Paper thin information hashed and rehashed because until the next thing breaks they have to play something on all those 24 hour news channels--Savonneux (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

collapse misstatements of fact falsely attributed to newspaper article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment. Do you agree that it adds to the notability that 1) Rich got 2 shots in the head and 2) this is the first (probably) instance of police locating a man shot with the (Washington DC) Shot-Spotter acoustic technology? The NY Daily News seems to regard this as notable and the Seth Rich murder itself as notable. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/washington-dnc-staffer-seth-conrad-rich-shot-killed-article-1.2707538(PeacePeace (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC))[reply] No, and no. In fact I have no idea why you thought it necessary to bring 1) up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While I believe in assuming good faith, as it were, I am at a loss to know why my comment was hidden above, since the NY Daily News certainly did refer to the Shot-Spotter technology used to find the location of the shooting. And that is notable. Moreover, the NY Daily News appears to consider the murder itself as notable. (PeacePeace (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/washington-dnc-staffer-seth-conrad-rich-shot-killed-article-1.2707538 (PeacePeace (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I have no idea why your comment was hidden but your claim does appear to be incorrect. You claimed "this is the first (probably) instance of police locating a man shot with the (Washington DC) Shot-Spotter acoustic technology" but the source [14] just says "responded to the gun shots around 4:20 a.m. using the ShotSpotter system to find the location of the shooting". Considering our Gunfire locator#Public safety says "ShotSpotter system installed in Washington, DC has been successfully relied upon to locate gunfire in the area of coverage. The Washington, DC Police Department reported in 2008 that it had helped locate 62 victims of violent crime and aided in 9 arrests. In addition to assaults, the system detected a large amount of "random" gunfire, all totaling 50 gunshots a week in 2007." (emphasis added), your claim of it probably being the first is extremely dubious. I know you're new here, but actually it doesn't matter whether you're on wikipedia or elsewhere. You really need to read sources carefully and not read too much in to them. Frankly NY Daily News isn't a great source anyway so if they make claims which sound dubious you probably should check other sources before repeating them. But even they don't appear to have made such an extreme claim as the one you made (something being the first in 2016 for a system which was actually first trialled in 2007 with multiple use in 2007-2008 leading to expansion), not even close. BTW, I have no idea why you keep mentioning the what the NY Daily News regard as notable. We have our own notability standards which have little to do with what the NY Daily News regard as notable Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good point Einne, but did you notice that I began by asking a question, "Do you agree that . . . ," rather than making an indicative statement of fact? Also I used "probably." So you are evidently correct that this technology was not an innovation for this case and thanks for that information. But attention to a story by a newspaper does indicate notability. No doubt we all have no monolithic standard, but different standards of notability, and also possibly what we hope is not noted by the public. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by your last point. Our standard of notability is covered at WP:Notability. The ultimate requirement is GNG. We do have the subject specific guidelines, but these are really intended to just be a simply test to establish an article meets GNG without having to go through the work. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you probably shouldn't be participating in a deletion discussion. As for you earlier points, it's misleading to bring up the question. You weren't asking "is this true" but rather were saying "since this is a (probably) true fact, doesn't it mean..." so you were in fact stating a probable fact rather than simply asking a question. Also you seem to be missing a key point. This AFD is already messy enough. You shouldn't be writing random stuff, especially when that stuff is extremely wrong. And yes, saying something is the first in 2016, when the actually first happened in 2007/8 then repeated many times in that year, and this very basic detail is covered in our article on the subject; is something that's very wrong. If you can't be bothered doing basic research before commenting, then you could simply not say anything. You should also phrase your comments carefully since your wording strongly implied what you were saying was supported by the source when it was not. Perhaps most importantly, when what you say is so majorly wrong, it's not unresonably to simply hide your irrelevant comments. Again, if you don't want this to happen, either do basic research before talking or just don't say anything if you have no real idea what you're talking about. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The fact that the death is notable for stupid reasons (viz. conspiracy theories) does not somehow negate its notability. It has received extensive media coverage, and I don't see how BLP1E/BDP comes into play here, since the article's about his death, not about him, and there's nothing in the article which reflects negatively on Rich or his family and friends. Now, obviously this article should not be kept so that it can be used as an incubator for WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories coming from SPAs and POV-pushers. But I see no problem with it being kept as an article that neutrally describes the detail of the investigation, as well as the conspiracy theories regarding it. (If POV-pushing remains an issue, ARBAP2 discretionary sanctions can certainly be imposed.) If it comes to pass that the conspiracy theories become far more notable than the murder itself, then I can see the case for moving to Conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich or such, per TFD's quite insightful comments here. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NOTNEWS portion of the argument, i.e. that Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Now it uses routine or timely coverage as an example to the rule but not an element of the rule. It's an election year. Every time someone passes gas loudly you get 400 articles on the event. We could write an entire article on Clinton's facial expressions if you sourced it to the US Media (I'm not using WP:OTHERSTUFF here I'm just pointing out something). When the book comes out I'll be convinced (per Chandra Levy), until then this is just a media circus that is even now dying down.--Savonneux (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it's dying down in the national news. I live in D.C. This is a major local news story here. CNN may perhaps forget about it, but it seems unlikely that The Washington Post will. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and change name to Seth Rich. Clearly notable: tens-to-hundreds of thousands of results on google news / google search for "seth rich murder" and variants thereof. Plenty of reliable sources on the details of the murder; the existence of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories does not take away from the verifiable information out there. The real question is whether or not this article gets disqualified under section 2 of the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" subpolicy of WP:NOT. I don't see this article as merely a "timely" incident analogous to celebrity gossip, and am thus firmly on the side of keeping the article. I suggest that the article be renamed to simply Seth Rich, as it really covers both (a) biographical information and (b) details of his murder. // Cachedio (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. When did Wikipedia give up on its mission to be an encyclopedia and decide to become a tabloid newspaper? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whether or not Wikipedia has been tabloid in the past and when that began (if it ever did), is irrelevant. There is nothing tabloid about the article on an event which is reported in major news outlets (non-tabloid). (PeacePeace (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete WP:NCRIME, WP:EVENTCRIT this appears to be an unremarkable robbery gone bad (botched robbery). It is so unremarkable that the police reported this is the fourth such type of mugging-robbery - and of course the police have much experience.

Also for comparison - for 2014 (the latest year I could find) there were about 1,165,000 violent crimes in the United States [15] (source: FBI). In 2012 there were 354,000 robberies nationwide [16] (source: FBI). In Washington DC, as of August 15, 2016, there have been 1900 robberies, and 85 homicides in 2016 [17] (source: DC Police).

Also, per WP:EVENTCRIT (above) this appears to have no historic value and it is not of lasting importance - its already fading away, having fallen off the the News Cycle - no coverage in Google news since August 10th - and that was focused on the WikiLeaks reward. The only thing the news covered significantly was other people - such as Julian Assange, the bereaved, the police, Hilary's comments, (Newt Gingrich) and so on. Furthermore, using the news cycle chart - coverage related to this robbery peaked on August 10th according to the aforementioned News cycle indicator - and went into a steep dive thereafter [18].

And as stated above WP:BLP1E applies because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this person only became known due to this one event - which has no long lasting effect and therefore should not be an article. And most certainly WP:BDP applies with all the speculation and conspiracy theories swirling around the individual at the center of this event ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This murder is notable as a fascinating mystery and as having rewards offered both by the police and by WikiLeaks, right after Assange gave an interview in which he strongly suggests that Seth Rich was a leak source for Wikileaks. The mysterious noise heard by his girlfriend to which he responded not to worry with the bruises on face and body are also a riddle. The fact of the suspicion of being the leak source is very notable. But thus far there is not a good case for this being a hit job, as the bruises do not seem consistent with that. But suspicion of hit job, is not essential to the notability. Isn't the BDP concerned with people dead over 115 years? If so what is that relevance? As to one event, Seth Rich had a significant project with the DNC, was shot with viral results on the internet which recur day after day (1000's of events?), was posthumously involved in a dramatic TV interview and in a dramatic and intriguing offer of reward money from Wikileaks. However, BLP1E states, "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when . . . ." The article is "Murder of Seth Rich," not "Seth Rich." So the articles is "an article on a person" or a "biography" (term mentioned in BLP1E). It is about a notable murder, notable for the viral response it got on the internet, notable for getting a reward offered by Wikileaks, notable for being the murder of a man who was practically identified as a Wikileak source by Assange, though he stopped short of a direct assertion. (PeacePeace (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Let me say again you really need to read stuff properly before commenting. There is nothing in:

The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.

which says it only applies to people "dead over 115 years". And to be honest I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Did you mean people who died recently and were over 115 years of age, or people who died over 115 years ago? If you meant the later, your comment is even more wrong. Anyway the quoted statement is clearly saying it applies to people who recently died regardless of their age. The only relevance of 115 years is, as the guideline says, people who are over 115 years are assumed dead and people under 115 years are assumed alive; unless there is evidence to the contrary. Since Seth Rich was not even close to 115 years, but his death is very well established and disputed I think by no one here, the 115 years bit is irrelevant to this particular discussion. He is however recently deceased, again something accepted by everyone in this discussion (or should be), therefore BLP arguably could still apply, as BDP says. ::Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, my comment is not wrong. It was a question. Kindly cease making false attributions as to my statements. If I ask a question, that is not an assertion. And it is not wrong to ask a question. (PeacePeace (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

PeacePeace wrote: "This murder is notable as a fascinating mystery and as having rewards offered"...the mysterious noise heard by his girlfriend to which he responded not to worry with the bruises on face and body are also a riddle... Comment: Wikipedia is not a mystery novel or a serial mystery magazine or suspense novel. Wikipedia does not promote speculation. And saying Seth "had a significant project with the DNC" is a POV statement - media coverage did not say his job was significant - and this is really not related to any ONE EVENT criteria. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The murder does not pass WP:EVENTCRIT. The conspiracy theories pass WP:GNG, but Conspiracy theories about the killing of Seth Rich could not pass WP:PROFRINGE at this point, and Rich's WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE status (see WP:LPI) and family's appeal [19], [20] make the latter page definitely inappropriate. FourViolas (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that such an article would not pass WP:PROFRINGE and would run counter to WP:BDP which is concerned with fringe and conspiracy theories that have been shown to be needlessly "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends" - as demonstrated above by User:FourViola and noted by others in the above. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficient coverage in multiple sources. Hlevy2 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is zero claim to any notability in the article, much less sources to support those claims. A guy died. Maybe someone will find out why, and maybe it will mean something. Until then, there's nothing even remotely interesting to read about here. Yes, it was covered in the news, as was yesterday's weather. So? --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This subject seems inherently notable per above. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question RE: "per above" -- there's an awful lot of discussion up thar. Could you please specify the reason you believe this subject is notable, citing WP policy and RS citations? How would you respond to the concerns stated above that virtually all of the media coverage relates to Wikileaks' coy attempt to insinuate itself and its agenda into this matter rather than to the crime which is the subject of this article and this AfD? SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG applies. There are many reliable, independent sources covering this event, as demonstrated by TradingJihadist and Anythingyouwant. As for the WikiLeaks thing, this still shows that this event is notable, at least in some way because of all that coverage. Now that I think about it, I wouldn't mind merging this into another article(s), but either way, this is too notable to simply delete. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and change name to Seth Rich. The clear and reasonable consensus is for keep. This deletion push is irrational, resembling shill tactics. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. DNC may seek to repress the collection and dissemination of this information because (Redacted). Retaliation is an obvious possible motive because of Rich's info leak to Assange. If even partly true, notability is huge; but either way, it should no longer be disputed. - JGabbard (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those who would decry the logic of criminal minds as conspiracy theory in order to dismiss the larger picture surrounding this event, I just wanted to be 'Captain Obvious' and connect a couple dots pointing to the elephant in the room. 'Nuff said. - JGabbard (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The only person who has been proven to be a sock puppet is the article creator.--Savonneux (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @JGabbard:, TradingJihadist (talk · contribs) is the article creator [21]...--Savonneux (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the article. I do support keeping it, partly for its value in teaching conspiracy theorists that it may well be a garden variety mugging.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mistook you for the article creator at the bottom of the first page, sorry. But two shots to the back of the head is NOT the typical M.O. of muggers, more of assassins.-JGabbard (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

collapse misstatement of fact contradicted by virtually every RS and insinuating BLP violation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, The Telegraph says 2 shots in the head. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/10/wikileaks-offers-20000-reward-over-murder-of-democrat-staffer-se/ . But now the Daily Mail Online (which looks rather tabloid to me, says shot were in the torso). (PeacePeace (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Is this egregious breach of BLP sanctionable? Geogene (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPTALK--Savonneux (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JGabbard: per Geogene and Savonneux' comments, I have redacted what appears to be the most major BLP breach in your comments. I'm leaving the "assassins" comment stand for now, since I'm not sure if I see a BLP issue when the implied villain is a collective entity rather than a particular individual or individuals. That said, if others see fit to strike that and similar comments of yours, I won't be objecting to that by any means. Furthermore, even if your conspiracy-theorizing here does not violate BLP, it is inappropriate in an AFD or anywhere on Wikipedia; additionally, they may be sanctionable under ARBAP2. I would strongly encourage you to remove your comments here. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (see trend line [22]) --- I know there are quite a few people that love conspiracy theories but as of today there are no reliable sources stating that this was anything other than a DC murder (he was walking home around 4 in the morning). If something comes to light over the next few months it's not hard to recreate an article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For what it's worth, the creator of this article had less than 100 edits and was blocked indefinitely less than a week ago [23] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For what it's worth, the blocking of that editor is notable, as are the 2 or 3 (by police, Wikileaks, & possible 1 other) offers of reward money for information about this murder. The passion this murder has raised is also notable, as methinks the attempts to censor the article. It is notable that immediately after a few objective facts about Rich's family, were added to the article, the addition was speedily reverted. The continuation of the derogatory talking point "conspiracy theory," while the article has no conspiracy theory, is notable. (PeacePeace (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

• Clearly it's the cabal.--Savonneux (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly the level of interest on both sides, with such an inordinate amount of agitation by the minority side over the article's very existence, more than justifies its indefinite continuation.-JGabbard (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Gabbard, Peace, et al. [24]. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Controversy or not, the murder was covered extensively in reliable sources. The fact that Wikileaks issued a reward for information leading to a conviction for the killing makes the subject of this page even more notable. Meatsgains (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being covered does not mean notable. Road closures are covered, food fights are covered, rescued dogs are covered, but all very soon forgotten. When there are sourced claims to some notability, then we can create an article about that notability. Until then, there's simply nothing to put in this article, unless we just ramble and speculate. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it's a WP:SENSATION case: there is material we could put in the article to indicate notability beyond WP:ROUTINE, but that material is prohibited under WP:PROFRINGE and WP:BDP. FourViolas (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, that's what I meant. Thank you for saying it better. It's not an article we can support at this time. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Somedifferentstuff Please note I created the original Seth Rich BLP, and it was then merged into Murder of Seth Rich by the "user with less than 100 edits." I find the subject to be notable and worthy of a WP article so I don't see how your argument is relevant. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comatmebro, your creation of the article doesn't impact my view that the subject of this article is not-notable, and therefore it follows that this article should be deleted. I understand that you think he is notable. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somedifferentstuff I never asked if my creation of the article impacted your view of the subject's notability. I said your argument was irrelevant. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comatmebro, then your mention of "user with less than 100 edits" was meaningless. Here is my current view: Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (see trend line [25]) --- The subject of this article is not-notable nor has he been proven to be. This will be my final comment here. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed duplicate bolding of "Delete". FourViolas (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somedifferentstuff Again, YOU mentioned the "user with 100 edits," and made it seem as though that had some sort of weight as to whether or not the article should be kept. You are right, it is meaningless. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:24, 19 August 2016 (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.