Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Crime. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Crime|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Crime. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime/archive

Purge page cache

watch

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography.

Crime

Death of Juan Andrés Benítez

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

I propose merging to Àgora Juan Andrés Benítez because these articles have significant overlap, the death of a man, and a protest garden over his death that has been running for 12 years. I think readers would get better coverage of both events in one page. I have no preference on which way the merge goes. (The series of events that occurred here was an editor translated this page from Spanish and submitted it to AfC, and then someone else made the other article, and then this article was accepted by AfC.) 1brianm7 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Spain. 1brianm7 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and LGBTQ+ studies. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge. The death is more notable than the commemorative garden. I agree that two articles is overkill. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Peter Spiegel

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

Doesn't seem to pass BLP, After looking for additional sources I am not finding anything on WP:SIGCOV on him thatvwould have him pass nobility. Furthermore, almost all the sources here are linked to a crime/religious temple he was involved. Seems to fail per [WP:BLP1E]] Issac I Navarro (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bibliographies, Crime, Religion, and United States of America. Issac I Navarro (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I also noticed that this user page: User:GRohan2002/Peter Spiegel, it seems at one point was in the mainspace. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Andean Medjedovic

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

Looks like he is notable only for this one alleged crime, which he is not yet convicted of. I think the article should be deleted based on WP:BLPCRIME until (and if) there is actual conviction. Vgbypw (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Cryptocurrency, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep I found sustained coverage, such as as well as a documentary about him ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
To directly respond to WP:BLPCRIME, there's a footnote which reads: "The amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources is a valid consideration, among others." ◦ Sibshops (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Murder of Apratim

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Does not meet WP:NEVENT. It was just a spike in news, pretty much routine, which is gone in just one day. And of course, no lasting effect... — Raihanur (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Bangladesh. — Raihanur (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article also breaches WP:BLPCRIME by naming murder WP:SUSPECTS before they have been convicted of murder. Because suspects are legally innocent until proven guilty and convicted of the crime, the article shouldn't even have the word murder in the title, as murder cannot be verified beyond reasonable doubt unless there is a conviction. However, the article has some promising content about missing children and child safety in Bangladesh, and I am not averse to an alternative to deletion to preserve that content. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Henry Earl

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable and exploitative. Previously deleted as a BLP violation this article was recreated after the subject's death. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

There was consensus in the previous AFD that Earl meets the GNG. If you want WP:THREE sources, see . However, there was also consensus to delete under WP:BLP1E. Earl is no longer covered by WP:BLP, so he cannot be a BLP1E, but we do still need to check whether this article complies with WP:CRIME. Given the three sources I provided are from 2004, 2013, and 2024, I believe that Earl's involvement is plainly the subject of sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role, as required by that section.

To the charge that this article is exploitative: I don't believe this article is. Yes, it covers his history with the law, but it also devotes attention to his friendly demeanor and love of dancing. Like most people, he was complex, and I believe the article reflects that fact.

I therefore !vote to keep, but I recognize that reasonable minds might differ. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

The subject's death removes the strict WP:BLP1E issue, but it does not automatically establish that a standalone biography is appropriate. The cited sources all derive from the same underlying point of interest: Earl's exceptionally large number of arrests for public intoxication. Coverage appearing in different years is not necessarily "sustained coverage" in the sense contemplated by WP:CRIME when each article merely revisits the same novelty claim and repeats substantially the same arrest statistics and anecdotes.

The 2024 coverage was prompted by Earl's death and largely recapitulated the earlier "most arrested man" story; it did not demonstrate that he had acquired independent significance beyond that characterization. Nor does the inclusion of sympathetic details such as his friendliness or love of dancing resolve the underlying concern. Those details humanize him, but they do not establish notability separate from the repeated public documentation of his alcoholism, homelessness and minor arrests.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of human-interest stories, and meeting a mechanical source count does not require us to maintain a biography whose substance remains a catalogue of one vulnerable person's addiction and encounters with police. The material might be more appropriately discussed, if supported by broader analytical sources, in an article about homelessness, public intoxication or repetitive incarceration. A standalone biography remains both WP:UNDUE and exploitative. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

The sources (and therefore the article) cover him about half as a folk hero and half as the "most arrested man". It's not just the same statistics and anecdotes. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:46, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:14, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep. Previously deleted as a BLP violation this article was recreated after the subject's death. Yes...the L in BLP stands for living. As he has been deceased for several years BLP no longer applies. He obviously passes the GNG; given he is no longer alive I see no reason for us not to have this article. I'd have voted delete if he was still alive but now that he is dead there is not an issue.

Exploitative? By the same logic so is our article on say, Rachel Dolezal. Someone actually tried to delete her article on those grounds once.

This is not BIO1E. There are many events here, and the case is not exactly "run of the mill"! That's the exact reason it got coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. After reading the article I can't see anything remotely notable about this person. Athel cb (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Athel cb That he passes the WP:GNG seems a pretty obvious one? PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The sources do not establish WP:GNG merely by appearing in different years. They are substantially repetitive human-interest reports generated by the same novelty claim - Earl's reputed record number of arrests - rather than independent, in-depth coverage of him as a person. Describing him as a local "folk hero" is another aspect of that same notoriety, not a separate basis for notability. The later obituary largely recycles the earlier reporting, so the cited material does not amount to the varied, substantial coverage needed for a standalone biography. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Wellington Bay They establish GNG by being "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (that is what the GNG is). The sources are plainly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". None of what you mention has anything to do with GNG. Could you refer me to the policy and guidelines you're citing in making these judgements, please? PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
WP:GNG says that meeting the test only creates a presumption that a topic merits its own article. The question is whether these sources provide substantial coverage of Earl as a person or simply repeat the same human-interest story.

My concern is based mainly on WP:NOTNEWS, which says that not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, as well as WP:CRIME, which cautions that 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. All the coverage comes back to the same thing: Earl's unusually large number of arrests for minor alcohol-related offences. Describing him as a "folk hero" is part of that same story, not a separate reason for an article. Even if the sources technically clear the GNG threshold, that creates a presumption, not a guarantee. I don't think the available material supports a rounded encyclopedia biography rather than a recurring human-interest story. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Okay, and what are you supplying to rebut that presumption? You're suggesting we ignore the GNG in favor of... what?

On WP:NOTNEWS, where does this article contain original reporting, writing in news style, who's who coverage, and celebrity gossip and diaries? That is all notnews proscribes against, and none of it is here. And sure, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is not an event.

WP:CRIME applies to single-event crimes; not 1500 event crimes. Also 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 if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. This is not the case here. Describing him as a "folk hero" is part of that same story if it is, that's certainly a pass of WP:CRIME#2.

This is not a "human interest" story that only made the local news, as much as any crime is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep GNG is met, coverage is sustained, BLP or derivatives do not apply. I'll note that this article had previously been the subject of an off-wiki discussion, but that was 13 years ago, well before Earl's death. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. Without doubting HouseBlaster's good faith, I find myself in the rare position of arguing for the deletion of a subject that technically meets GNG. This is, in my opinion, an instance of what used to be called yellow journalism: singling out someone for having been arrested an unusual number of times. The additional details about him busking and being popular do not amount to coverage of the man as a person; we know almost nothing about his biography. Not everything reporters choose to write about is encyclopedic, and alive or dead, this topic skirts close to pointing and laughing, in my opinion. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
On your concern about, the obituary, the Newsweek piece, and some of the other sourcing contains quite a wealth of information about him beyond "man arrested" not in the article.

Even if this was "pointing and laughing" (which I don't think it is, the tone seems rather sober and sad), is that prohibited? Should we have deleted the Rachel Dolezal article when it was brought to AFD a year or two ago on the grounds that she had received that same kind of coverage only? She has received coverage exclusively as a target of scorn and mockery. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Did you intent to disclose your participation in the aforementioned off-wiki discussion? Would you care to comment on how WP:STEALTH does or doesn't apply in such a case? Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

No. Since it consists entirely of a single post reporting on the DYK nom having been created, HouseBlaster's objection to the initially suggested hook(s), and my having added "Oldafdmulti" on the talk page, which I assumed was an accidental oversight. Nobody's yet announced there that this AfD has been started. So IMO a canvassing argument is a reallll stretch. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep article meets WP:GNG, and isn’t one note, as it talks about his cultural status rather than just the flashy headlines saying how many times he’s been arrested. Claims that the article is exploitative are understandable, although I disagree, as that would imply we stand to gain something from having an article about this, to the detriment of Mr Earl (or I suppose his family now), and I don’t see what that would be. It would usually be monetary, but obviously that’s not a factor here. I don’t know what the issue with having an article about someone mostly or fully known for something negative is if it meets notability, especially as it’s not WP:BLPCRIME, or even a WP:BLP anymore. Typhoid Mary is today’s featured article as of writing, and she is obviously known for being a Superspreader, that’s no more ‘exploitative’ than something like this IMHO. An interesting case though, not an obvious choice at first glance. Edlectro28 (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

True Crime Community

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

This article only portrays its subject in a negative light and therefore violates WP:WEIGHT and therefore WP:NPOV. The article has been violating this policy since its beginning, so there is no neutral version to revert to. I propose following solutions: Option A: Delete the article per WP:STARTOVER and write a neutral article in its place. Option B: Delete the article without replacement. Option C: Strip the article down to only the first sentence, which appears to be neutral and make it a stub. Option D: Rewrite the article to be more neutral and add content between the lead and the "Connection to shootings" section that doesn't violate WP:NPOV. Option E: Keep article as is (status quo). Option F: Option E and remove undue weight tag. RaschenTechner (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related AfD discussions. RaschenTechner (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I do think there are NPOV issues because we are literally only going from this post-2024 angle (on something that has existed for 20+ years!) using advocacy organizations and such as coverage, which is not ideal; covering this from exclusively a counterterrorism angle does not give you a good idea of what this is, and advocacy organizations, by their nature, are not going to have any concern for neutrality. Through its recentism it obscure that TCC is actually a fandom, making it seem like something it is not.

I think it overemphasizes certain things and has sort of turned into a list of incidents, which is bad. There is a lot of coverage from before this period though. Especially sources that focus on the hybristophilic element on Tumblr and such (which was also the TCC) or the actual "fandom" elements - and there are numerous academic sources about this which are not mentioned - tended to be different and give a more well-rounded look. I wanted to make an article on this back in 2023, when it was clearly notable, but the sourcing ecosystem back then was totally different.

Also uncritically repeating the widely criticized FBI term "nihilistic violent extremism", which is used to group in transgender activism with antinatalists and neo-Nazis, is also poor, and seems to be a difficulty with MOS:EXTREMIST. The term is contentious to say the least.

But is this worth deleting over? Eh. There are probably ways to write about this that aren't terrible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

One of my proposed options does involve rewriting the article to be more neutral. Wikipedia:DINC may apply here, but I nominated it at AFD because one of my proposed options involves deleting this article and writing a neutral one in its place, since most of the article's text violates or appears to violate WP:NPOV and there is no neutral revision to revert to. Again, WP:DINC applies, but it might be easier to start a neutral article from scratch than to improve upon the non-neutral current article. RaschenTechner (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I don't see the problem with including the term "nihilistic violent extremism", the page for NVE does not even mention transgender activists because it is obviously biased. Most sources also skip that when discussing it, instead focusing on TCC, NLM and 764. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

How can an article about a criminal fandom be neutral? By seeking the views of its members on particular statements? YillowsGiblles (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

The article doesn't say it's a criminal fandom, it says that it is a fandom that is interested in crime and that many members later became criminals. And yes, per the NPOV policy, the views of its members must be taken into account. It doesn't mean the views should be promoted, since that would also violate NPOV, but it must take them into account. RaschenTechner (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Our article on hybristophilia or true crime, for comparison, are more neutral. This isn't so far off from that (it's just a weird fandom-esque derivation of them). Being interested in something, whether bad taste or not, does not inherently mean promoting that thing, as many sources on this indicate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Just WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead of deleting the page outright. It can be rewritten but deletion is certainly not necessary. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep - This page is about the negative side of the True Crime community, if you want a positive page then go ahead and make True crime fandom or something. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

That would violate WP:POVFORK though. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Those aren't separate things, so that would be a POV fork. We do not make articles only covering negative parts of things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

There's no positive part to the True Crime Community, nobody in the mainstream true crime fandom refers to themselves as such. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

If we're considering "fandom" then it is the entire "fandom" element of true crime, yes. Fandom is not merely being interested in something; mainstream interest in true crime is not "fandom". "True crime fandom" is only used in reference to this topic - and again, WP:POVFORK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

"The True Crime Community (TCC) is not your typical true-crime enthusiasts, it provides a space for the extreme fringes to radicalize toward targeted violence." - Understanding the True Crime Community (TCC); Youth Targeted Violence and Weapons Iconography Militant.Insurgency (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

That is the brief description of a group webinar. It is not a reliable source. Note also that it does not differentiate it from fandom (because it is the true crime fandom).

Also, yes, this article provides this perspective in abundance, without consulting any other opinion, when it is not the only opinion, which is WP:RECENTISM and a NPOV issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

For an example, there are numerous sources from before 2024 about the TCC , including full academic articles, that take a much different approach, e.g. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Can you please highlight which sections of the study? A very quick skim of this study leads me to the same conclusion of copycat crimes and the mass shooting cantagion. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I do not know how you are getting that out of the summary which explicitly discusses the issues with the contagion theory and "vernacular debates about fandom"... PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

I found a more detailed analysis in Polish. It notes that this is a subgroup of the true crime genre, among many other nuances. It could potentially be used for the article. https://scholar.archive.org/fatcat/release/56ca5777-9695-41ff-aa97-d6d5986f9b93 YillowsGiblles (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Option C. It's a community based on interest in actual crime,no valid reason to include fucking tiktok edits,lol. Shernop (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Theres a difference between the True Crime Community and normal true crime enthusiasts Militant.Insurgency (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

That's probably the dumbest thing I've ever read, remove academic sourcing and make it a stub? Do better. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

...almost none of this article's sourcing is academic sourcing? There is a singular academic ref, the rest is NGOs and news. The academic sourcing would not be the part that is removed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Either way, removing sourced content is a terrible idea. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Tell me a singular academic source here. Shernop (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Better wording would be reliable sources. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Please remember to stay civil in this discussion. RaschenTechner (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

There is a valid reason to include TikTok edits since that is the bulk of the TCC content now, even mentioned in multiple sources and has a dedicated article. I even recently added that they have shifted from Tumblr to TikTok after the crackdown on TCC-content. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep: Per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL. Laura240406 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

List of fictional prisons

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

I understand a lot of work had been put into this, but after doing a search I'm not convinced that these fictional prisons meet WP:NLIST, as they are not discussed as a group (or set) of prisons by any of the sources I could find on the Internet. At present, this list is little more than just that - a list, with very little prose or arguments made that would establish notability. It relies on a single source that only covers one soap opera as well.

My WP:BEFORE search turned up several sources that discussed works about prisons, but not the prisons themselves, as well as real-life prisons and their policies with regards to physical books and media inside prison walls. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:41, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Crime, and Lists. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:41, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom - The article as it currently stands is entirely devoid of any kind of source that covers the topic of the list - there is a single source regarding one of the locations, that is not even about the fictional prison but where it was filmed in real life. Like the nom, I was also unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the concept as a group or set - the best I found were a few listicles from less-than-reliable places like WP:VALNET sites. Only three of the entries here actually link to dedicated articles on a fictional prison (the rest of the blue links either just redirect to the article on the piece of fiction the prison appeared in or, in the vast majority of the cases, just other lists) making it useless as a navigational list as well. Rorshacma (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment @Gommeh: What about e.g. The Palgrave Handbook of Incarceration in Popular Culture as the very first Google Books hit? I think it can hardly be said that this book-length treatment is only about works featuring prisons to the exclusion of fictional prisons. (p. 174/175 "...through imagined prisons and their way through popular culture...", how and why the Supermax is so present in sci-fi leaning works; p. 187 "...it can be argued that the fictional prisons embodied many of the real issues in real America...")? Or the second hit, Metaphors of Confinement on a subset of women's prisons (how fictional prisons function as a metaphor of "the prisons of femininity" and what this trope can and cannot do for their authors)? Daranios (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment - As the nomination says, there are sources about fictional depictions of prisons and imprisonment, but not ones that discuss specific examples of fictional prisons as a group or set. In other words, there is certainly an argument to be made that a prose "Prisons in Fiction" or "Fictional Depictions of Prisons" type article could be a valid topic. Not so much an article that is nothing but a list of almost entirely non-notable examples. Rorshacma (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep and improve, possibly rename/rearrange: I do believe, as stated above, that those two sources discuss fictional prisons as a group, not only works featuring prisons. Additionally, the whole book Narrating the Prison mostly focusses on the fictional prisons (starting out with Charles Dickens' repesentations, but then broadening the scope) as a group, rather then the works. Additionally, The Oxford Handbook of Prisons has a full chapter/essay which is called "The Literature of Confinement", but according to Information Sources in the Social Sciences, p. 194, is about "the depiction of prisons in fiction". With this, I see the WP:LISTN requirement as fullfilled. The list is not in good shape, but these are issues which can be solved through normal editing and so that's not a reason for deletion: inclusion criterea and requirments can easily be formulated, and if trimmed of non-relevant entries (ideally after cross-checking for secondary sources first), there would still be enough for this to be helpful for browsin in the vein of WP:LISTPURP-NAV (Category:Fictional prisons has nine stand-alone entries; we have more blue links here for fictional prisons which have a section elsewhere and one referenced entry). The listed sources can be used to reference existing entries and add new ones, as well as give the context beyond a pure listing. All that said, I would not have any objections to rearrange that to have a List of works set in prison(s), if there is a feeling that that scope would be supported by more sources. But we don't have such a list yet, and for deleting first and hoping someone might recreate that later, WP:BATHWATER would apply. Daranios (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Opening up the Google Scholar search to this phrasing provides further sources, e.g. "Fictional Representation of Prison in Films and TV’s Series Genre: Public and Academic Perceptions of Prison again has the focus on discussing "fictional representations of prisons" as a group rather than works of ficition depicting prisons, although by nature those two viewpoint can never be fully separated. Daranios (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep I do not really see the difference between "fictional works about prisons" and "fictional prisons". If the article is renamed to "list of works depicting prisons", then nothing would change substantially. Regarding sourcing, it is present as shown by Daranios, even a whole book has been written about the subject. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The difference is that "fictional works about prisons" encompasses fictional works which are about real prisons, like The Rock (film), whereas "fictional prisons" encompasses prisons which appear in fictional works, but which are not the primary subject of the work. (Most of the entries in List of fictional prisons fall into the latter category.) Omphalographer (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Ok, I did not think about this distinction. Then the article should be just expanded to include all examples. The sources above talk about "Fictional Representation of Prison" and "Narrating the Prison". I do not see how either term wouldn't be applicable to a movie that portrays Alcatraz, it is still fiction even if it is based on a real place. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: NLIST requires sourcing that shows the subject of the list to be the direct target of the source, I.e. A source that discusses fictional prisons collectively. That's the kind of sourcing needed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:40, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a fandom. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 09:12, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Crime Proposed deletions

Deletion Review