Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Goodfield arson

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Goodfield arson (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)

Can we either simply delete this article, or remove and revdel all references to the accused (and delete all mentions of his name elsewhere). This is a 9-year-old who wasn't even convicted, it fails WP:SUSPECT (and WP:BLP1E), and shouldn't be named and shamed even if the article itself isn't named after him. Fram (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Illinois. Fram (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete On top of the above concerns, this never seems to have moved beyond police blotter coverage in reliable sources other than a slow-newws-day piece in the NZ Herald. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There are some academic criminology sources discussing this, focusing on how young the perpetrator was, which indicates to me that this probably warrants an article... someday. From looking at it the case was never dropped it just got caught up in what I expect is the extremely complicated circumstances involved in prosecuting a 9 year old for mass murder. If/when he does get convicted and if there is then later coverage that is in depth and retrospective I would not be opposed to recreating it. As is this may be too hard to write at the moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt I'm going to be blunt, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:MINORS (as a crime subject, not bright-line as what that essay notes usually) must be invoked here and somehow even though there were edits supposedly removed in November 2020, the minor's name has been kept in the article even though Illinois is damned clear that juvenile offenders charged in juvenile court, such as this subject are never to be named in a case outside very specific cases. It's now been removed from the article body, but I'm asking an admin if they see this to revdel the name if possible. And as for the case itself, this is simply only notable in the Peoria area. Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the sources mentions his name. Do we remove that source too or? Procyon117 (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not in favor of keeping the article but this must have been such a "specific case" because almost every source on the event does name him, both in immediate aftermath and later on. It's not like it was mentioned in one article and then never again. Just a note. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In the brightline opinion, juveniles in Illinois can be named in a newspaper, but the state's press association asks them to think about the ethics and justification of doing so; generally I cede to local sources's judgement on doing so (usually Chicago area media do not but I can't speak for Peoria), and just feel that we can't justify any naming here. The editor who added it was a drive-by and because of their age, I feel we should be cautious and leave the name out. Its exclusion doesn't muddle the article in any appreciable or visible manner.Nate • (chatter) 22:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All that aside, what you initially said ("are never to be named") does not seem to be true here, given how widely printed his name is. His name is also in the URL of the most used source on the page. For that reason I consider revdelling pointless unless you want to remove all the sources especially since it will simply be deleted for lack of notability. And such is why you should not write articles on ongoing criminal cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article per WP:NOTNEWS in the absense of any signs of enduring notability or broader interest (the only sources I can find that were not in the immediate aftermath are super-local media) and a significant concern about whether this could ever be BLP-compliant. --JBL (talk) 17:55, 23 November 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.