Murder of Carrim Alli: Non notable individual - bio article stub based on single event.  — User:Mccapra 21:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Removed PROD after renaming article.  I agree that as a person he is not, but as a event it may be notable and has sustained coverage — User:MarkZusab 06:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC) article lacks information and sourcing, is not relevant enough for wikipedia page to exist — User:BusterBuster123 18:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC) – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 02:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Crime , Events , Police ,  and South Africa .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 02:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Odd, I get zero hits in Gnews.  I suppose it's not notable then.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm going to recuse myself from voting here, because he was a (very distant) acquaintance.  A small amount of Googling for "Carrim Alli murder" reveals that case received coverage over a period of years in multiple WP:RS , indicating it meets WP:GNG .  WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:WORLDWIDE apply as well.  [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] .  I'm surprised that there are no hits on Google News, but that's more a reflection of the Google News algorithm than anything else: the main Google search seems to bring forth a lot of information.  Also found an academic article that mentions his murder [26] in the context of Whistleblower protection in South Africa, and another that discusses his murder in the context of police corruption.  [27] .  A South African Police newsletter states that the "whole country was shocked by  Capt Carrim Alli's brutal murder" [28] (whether that newsletter is an RS is open to debate, but it does capture the level of coverage of the murder).  Park3r ( talk ) 06:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added some links on to the page and i think we can keep this article page, the event is very significant and it doesn't happen much, am sure it went down in the history of South Africa's police department.  Nenerue ( talk ) 11:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Murders of non-notable people are almost never notable.  All WP:SIGCOV of this event is based on breaking news and updates .  This is a textbook example of an event that saw coverage while it was ongoing but did not generate WP:SUSTAINED sigcov after the dust settled.  If someone can find retrospective articles that analyze the sequence of events after the fact, or maybe a book about the murder, then I will change my ! vote.  An event like this is better suited for an article like Timeline of Pretoria , where I've just added it.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 18:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m not sure if “timeline of Pretoria” is the the appropriate place for a murder of a South African police captain, since South Africa has a national police force, not local forces like the US.  He happened to be killed in Pretoria, but the killing was not specifically related to Pretoria, it was related to a probe into large-scale corruption in the South African Police headquarters [29] .  I also specifically provided two academic articles above that discuss his murder in the context of whistleblowing and police corruption in South Africa.  At some point, despite WP:OTHER being a thing, one has to wonder why articles like Shooting of Ralph Yarl are deemed notable, but an event like this murder (that was, unlike most such incidents in South Africa, covered over a period of years by multiple RS) is deemed non-notable.  Park3r ( talk ) 21:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I seriously considered nominating Shooting of Ralph Yarl for deletion when it was created, but people tend to get really huffy is you nominate a non-notable event for deletion shortly after it occurs, so I didn't.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 21:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Going by WP:EVENT the Yarl shooting probably fails, but it would be hard to argue that it doesn't meet WP:GNG , and any nom would probably fail for that reason.  Which is why I mentioned GNG above in the context of the Alli killing.  Unless GNG is to be tacitly disregarded for events, or events outside the Core Anglosphere.  Park3r ( talk ) 23:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability requires sustained secondary coverage.  News reports covering the event as it is unfolding do not count toward notability.  I agree that any nomination would likely fail, but it's because several ! voters would come in and disregard that requirement, and no closer would be brave enough to handle the backlash of discarding those erroneous ! votes.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 03:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "News reports covering the event as it is unfolding do not count toward notability."  I haven't seen that as a requirement for WP:GNG .  Where does it come from?  Park3r ( talk ) 04:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Look at the criteria listed at WP:Notability .  It requires sustained secondary coverage.  Developing news reports are not that.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 04:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm curious about your  of a secondary coverage, and why news reports aren't that.  It sounds like you want coverage from tertiary sources?  In any case, some of those sources do actually analyse the Alli case.  Park3r ( talk ) 06:08, 7 June 2023 (::::::I'm talking about secondary sources as defined at WP:SECONDARY .  News sources are not secondary, they are primary sources that document a sequence of events as it is unfolding.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 14:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] interesting, thanks.  I would consider (and have during my time editing Wikipedia and prior to that, (probably going back to when I learned this at library period in primary school) that a primary source would be something like a court transcript, a press release, an interview, or an eyewitness account.  Your claim that “news sources are not secondary” doesn’t seem to align with WP:SECONDARY , and WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay that seems to have a rather elitist idea of what constitutes a secondary source.  I’d be curious to know which of the 15 or so sources I added above would qualify as secondary sources in your mind.  In the instance of this murder, I’d see a transcript of the murder trial or appeal, an eyewitness account from someone who saw his body, a legal judgement, a report made into the alleged corruption that led to his death, by the victim, a primary source, since those would require WP:SYNTH to come to meaningful conclusions.  Not the various reports discussing the murder published in RS by journalists.  I’d also be curious about what other editors think about this issue in general, and how the concept of “news sources are not secondary” aligns with exisiting site policy.  Park3r ( talk ) 15:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 00:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I think we need some additional assessments of the sources added to this article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 23:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SIGCOV , WP:ROUTINE and WP:GNG .  My opinion of the sources: Source 1 is a various mix of quotes related to the incident and the subject.  There are twelve lines in total, with six being quotes by an individual related to the subject/event.  Out of the six non-quote lines, only three only tell news, whereas the other three introduce a quote by an individual related to the subject/event.  Source 2 is routine commentary about the court hearing.  Source 3 is once again routine commentary and timeline about the court hearing.  Source 4 is once again routine commentary about the court hearing.  I can't access source 5, and archives aren't loading for me for some reason.  Source 6 also seems to be routine coverage about this event.  Karnataka ( talk ) 20:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I put up 15 sources above though, including 2 academic articles that mention the murder in the context of police corruption.  But given the media coverage over an extended period in WP:RS, I’d like to know how it doesn’t meet GNG.  Park3r ( talk ) 06:18, 24 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete