Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fugitives from justice who are no longer sought

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. This debate ultimately boiled down to whether this fits our criteria for encyclopedic content or not. The consensus in this debate is that the list does not meet this criteria. Daniel (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fugitives from justice who are no longer sought

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An absurd, non-encyclopedic list of people who, at one time, were fugitives, but now are not, either because they were caught or because they died hundreds of years ago (although apparently this never happened in the history of the human race before 1554, according to this list). I do enjoy how the way the list is structured, it implies that Josef Mengele was fleeing from Nazi Germany, that's fun. And also how like 80% of the list is Americans from the last 150 years or so. Oddly, apparently nobody anywhere on earth was a fugitive who is no longer being sought between 1926 and 1929, the jailers must've been really on top of their game for those three years. This is just ridiculous, It's embarrassing to even know it is hosted here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for this reasons that I left on the articles talk page. This article has been a HUGE success! Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Define "huge success" please. I'm certainly not seeing one here. An incomplete list of every person who was ever wanted by law enforcement, but now is not is not an encyclopedia topic. Frankly your attitude abut this almost comes across as deliberate trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Check out page views as that is what I meant. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart:, please indent your replies. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The talk page comments seem to imply that this list is overly broad and vaguely defined, and based on most of these people no longer being sought due to death, I'm inclined to agree with the former. There may be thousands of notable criminals like that. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: Check out page views as that is what I meant. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews have spiked because this page is being mocked as an example of a terrible Wikipedia article on an external criticism site. I would also assume that whoever closes this discussion would know perfectly well that pageview counts are in no way a valid argument to keep an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What external site would that be? It's not prominent enough to show up on the first few pages of google, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're searching on, but I found the discussion I assume Beeblebrox is referencing as the first hit on a search for "list of fugitives" "crap article". That's hardly the first time issues with this particular page have been raised; if you want an on-wiki example, here's myself complaining about it more than a year ago. ‑ Iridescent 06:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching without crap article which seems to be the parlance for that very nasty forum that has been attacking the editor concerned with this article including suppositions of mental health which would have resulted in a block on wikipedia. Furthermore the topic wasn't raised there until 18 July and yet this article had monthly page views of 47,000 back in March so the link to page views is tenuous, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well-referenced. I 'do' believe the article needs a little pruning to remove the "vague" insertions, and can hold said vague insertions in the berth (chronologically "to add" with tomorrow's news). As stands, it can encourage insertions of non-notable instances. To summarize, the vast majority of entries need splicing into their own articles/subtopic articles if the page as stands isn't deemed significant enough (this is my opinion of course). An invaluable collection of references to the topic though.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing is not the issue here. The issue is that this is a list that is basically "anyone on earth who was ever wanted for any reason, and now is not wanted, also for any reason." That is a hopelessly vague, unencyclopedic structure for a list article (as you seem to acknowledge). I don't see why splitting it further makes any sense as the individual entries already have their own articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I agree. I can see either side of the argument. I do see the list as a potentially invaluable one. Is this a list more important?--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources that talk about fugitives who are no longer sought as a defined group. This concept is the creation of a Wikipedia editor. What connects fugitives from the 1500s with 21st century fugitives? Nothing. We already have "fugitive" categories, but the "no longer sought" qualifier is just plain silly and unencyclopedic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I initially thought this would be fugitives who were exonerated (which might be worthy; I'm looking at you Richard Kimble), but they seem to be, for the most part, people who were caught or killed or simply died before they could be apprehended. I strongly doubt that anyone else has compiled a list mashing together these three disparate criteria, so WP:NLIST applies. List of fugitives from justice who disappeared is good enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very useful list. Could need some work though. Byt AfD is no clean-up service. Sourced as well.BabbaQ (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was stealth-canvassed by the article creator Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and the nominator advertised this AfD at the aforementioned forum where user Stanistani is an active admin who commented on the thread and followed up with a delete vote here - off-wiki canvassing in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was already under discussion there and I merely mentioned that I had gone ahead an nominated it for deletion. Really not the same thing as informing one specific editor with no previous connection to the article, but who is apparently sympathetic. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is useless, impossible to keep current, and has deficiencies in grammar and spelling. →StaniStani 08:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Keep. I'm not a fan of lists, as tagging/categorising can often be better, but some lists can be useful. The fact that we have a "fugitive" category militates against this list, but in its favour is the fact that this list is trying to provide information on the shared (and notable) concept of "fugitive, but got away with it". Other commenters have pointed out that there are inconsistencies in how the people listed here are "no longer sought", and claim that this is a weakness of this list; actually, I think it's a strength, and perhaps the most useful thing about this page: what we have here is a view of how wide the possibilities for "no longer sought" can be. Some concepts are well-explained by definitions, but others require ostension, and this list helps by showing how "no longer sought" can come about. RomanSpa (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete The distinction between this and the "disappeared" is murky, since presumably after a hundred years or even less they stop trying to capture everyone. But if it makes sense to divide them up by one outcome, it makes sense to do so for the whole range of outcomes, and conversely, if it makes sense to lump some of them together, it makes sense to lump them all together and put in a column for the outcome. This particular grouping is arbitrary. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't have clear selection criteria. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and refine as I suggested on the talk page to fugitives who were sought for five or more years while they were / are alive or maybe three years if five is too restrictive. This article is on my watchlist so I would have commented anyway. Also regarding page views it's interesting that despite being linked at the top of every discussion we are supposed to studiously ignore them and yet when portals were discussed all the deletionists trotted out the page views, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Beeblebrox has pointed out, the higher-than-expected page views are because this is one of the standard pages used by critics as an example of Wikipedia at its worst, not because there's a flood of interest in the topic. ‑ Iridescent 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That forum did not discuss this article until July 18 yet it had page views of 47,000 for last March, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've previously used this pseudoarticle as an example of the worst of Wikipedia, and haven't seen anything to change my opinion. This isn't a coherent list of any kind—it's a completely arbitrary selection of randomly chosen criminals. "Fugitive from justice who is no longer sought" as used on this article describes literally every criminal who wasn't arrested at the scene of the crime but was subsequently detained. Even if we were to restrict it only to those people with existing Wikipedia articles, we're talking hundreds of thousands of entries before it would even come close to completeness, and without at least trying for completeness it's just a piece of original research. ‑ Iridescent 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list doesn't have clear selection criteria. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 08:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How else would readers know that fugitives who died in previous centuries are not still being pursued for posthumous prosecution? Oops, I meant delete due to lack of notabilty for the list as a topic, lack of clear inclusion criteria, and the general absurdity of a list that mixes people who have been captured, people who were killed by authorities, people who died of old age while still on the lam, etc. "It's useful" is a reasonable keep defense for some functional pages (templates, for example), but not for articles. --RL0919 (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impossibly vague criteria and does not make LISTCRIT. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One if the worst examples of a list on Wikipedia, and unsalvageable. No evidence of any sources discussing "fugitives who have evaded justice and no longer being sought" in particular, and the criteria is so vague as to be meaningless. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources discussing fugitives which is obviously a notable topic, this is just a reduction of that topic. Also an entry qualification added that a fugitive would have to have been on the run for 5 years while alive would trim the entries down, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of fugitives is notable, which is why the Fugitive article exists, as well as Category:Fugitives. This list is about a poorly defined subset of fugitives, for which no evidence of notability has been provided. --RL0919 (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have cited WP:CFORK in the nomination as this is exactly what this is: a made-up subset of the overall topic, created entirely here on Wikipedia as opposed to being based on coverage of this specific subset. That's not how it is supposed to work. Of course sources can be found about the subject of fugitives in general, and nobody is suggesting we delete all content on the broader subject so bringing that up is a red herring. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic list with extremely vague criteria of inclusion, borderlining on original research.--Darwinek (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very much unencyclopedic, shouldn't have even been created in the first place. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The relevant PAG is WP:LISTN. So the question is whether "fugitives from justice who are no longer sought" is a categorisation that exists in reliable sources. Googling "fugitives from justice who are no longer sought" only brings up Wikipedia as a source, so my current answer to that question is no, but am happy to change my mind if someone finds me a source that shows this grouping is actually something that exists outside the imagination of Wikipedia editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That having been said, it is well sourced, meets our core content policies, and the pageviews suggests it provides purpose to our readers, so a reasonable argument can be made to disregard the list notability guideline in this case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on page view statistics I'd rather not go here, but since people keep holding up page views as evidence I feel I must. Page views do not reflect the number of unique visitors, only how many times the page was viewed in total. So, take July 4 for example. The page's primary author made over forty edits, presumably viewing the page many times while doing so. I'm not suggesting there is deliberate inflation of page views here, merely that it is not a trustworthy metric. Per WP:PAGEVIEWS: "Page stats can help determine how popular a page is, but are not an indication of a topic's notability. Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines are based on coverage found in reliable sources. If a page's stats are low, it is not a reason to consider it for deletion, and if high it is not a reason to save it from deletion." This simply should not be a consideration here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should also like to point out that if you search for "list of fugitives" in Google, it gives List of fugitives from justice who disappeared, and then the page being discussed. Since there is no overall list of fugitives, people don't really have any other pages to look at. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I searched for "list of fugitives" on Google, I'd be expecting pages from Interpol and national law enforcement agencies, not Wikipedia. Prioritizing lists of people who are not actively sought fugitives seems counterproductive. (Not that what Google does should be much of our concern.) --RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stumbled upon this page while reading about Idi Amin and while the author seems to have invested much time and effort into this list, it also seems absurdly non-encyclopedic to me. Absolutely concur with what most in the Delete camp have been saying. Maybe a standalone article should exist for fugitives who managed to evade justice for so long that authorities just gave up looking for them, but this list seems to cater for criminals who were explicitly caught or killed, which I suppose is the fate of a vast majority of fugitives. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2021 (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.