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 as a WP:BLP1E that is also a WP:BLPCRIME accusation with no documented conviction. WP:BLP1E is an intentional exception to WP:GNG, so appeals to GNG and related guidelines are not effective counterarguments. Given the nature of this case, I will be courtesy blanking this discussion page tomorrow. RL0919 (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLP1E, and the crime itself doesn't pass WP:NCRIME. There was fairly wide coverage of the arrest itself. I haven't been able to find coverage of a conviction - in Hebrew ("אדם ליוויקס")) or English (I suspect Livix may have been deported due to his visa overstay, which would possibly explain lack of coverage). I don't see significant WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of this. Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. A brief flurry of coverage in December 2014 to early January 2015 - nothing since in a google search or in a Proquest news archive search despite unique name. There was an arrest, but I cannot find the trial, let alone a conviction. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there doesn't appear to be a suitable page to redirect it to and full deletion would be inappropriate for such a widely covered incident. It appears most likely that he was found to be insane rather than Icewiz’s suggestion that he was deported for overstaying his visa (anyways its inappropriate to speculate and immaterial to our work as editors). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye Jack: Possibly both (and I'll note the visa issue is present in RSes) - or sent by Police to the airport with ticket back to the States. I did the extra mile of searching Israeli law data bases (Nevo, pask din, and takdin) for any rulings and came up empty (remand hearings (which is what we have from media coverage - a ruling (almost routine) of custody until end of proceeedings) usually aren't in there - but if there were a verdict - I should've found it unless there is a name mixup (between media and court filings)). In any case - we can't retain this article as it fails WP:BLPCRIME. The subject isn't well known (the opposite), we have indication of a possible defense (in pre-trial coverage), and we don't have any indication of a conviction. I can't quite see where we would merge this to (and we'd have a BLPCRIME issue there as well). Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we have no evidence for a conclusion of the trial shouldn’t we treat the page as if the trial is still in progress? In some systems once a defendant is found to be insane/mentally incapable a higher level of privacy is implemented, do you know if its the case for Israel? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While the Israeli system strictly protects minors - this is not the case for insane AFAIK. Considering the suspicions for the plot consisted of alot of talk (+ a bit of military merchandise - but not that much - the roommate got off very light here - the kit mentioned in the articles is fairly common and low grade (e.g. stun and smoke grenades get tossed (illegally) at soccer games routinely)). I do know a thing or three about the system in this regards - if the eval was positive + some pressure from the US embassy and family - it quite likely they wouldn't have seen a point in pressing charges further locally..... In any event - absent WP:RS coverage (from 2015 to present) of any development (beyond the initial police suspicion and remand) per WP:BLPCRIME - we must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured + the event fails NEVENT/NCRIME (lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). I will also note - he can't (AFAICR) still be arrested until end of proceedings in 2019 - as extending over a year requires a supreme court justice's ruling (which generates media and legal paper trail).Icewhiz (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see you point and I agree almost entirely, I would just feel more comfortable if there was some sort of closure. I know the argument for kicking the can is weak policy wise but deleting a page based on a lack of knowledge just feels a little wrong. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that this happened in 2014, and in the Israeli judicial system the time lapse from indictment to trial with a suspect in custody and charged with plotting violence is often less than a year, rarely as much as 2 years - here, years have one by. Sometimes cases just quietly disappear, and not just in Israel, in Europe too when mental instability issues are suspected.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:RS and once notable always notable. WP:NTEMP. in addition the international coverage passes WP:GEOSCOPELightburst (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The dateline on taht story is January 1, 2015.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be about the subject's release from prosecution. On June 29, 2015 YNet News reported that he did not serve prison time "due to health reasons". Lightburst (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which only reinforces the BLPCRIME issue - as Livix was not even prosecuted and was not convicted. As for notability - if all the sources we have have are from the end of 2014 - 2015 - we fail CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. This event started with a bang (with wide and sweeping suspicions) - and ended with a very amall whimper that got very little coverage - classic NOTNEWS.Icewhiz (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst. You are new to Wikipedia, so perhaps you are unaware of WP:BLPCRIME: "(WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.GregoryThat the subject committed the crime, there is no doubt. The subject's accomplice was sentenced and he was not - but all was testified to in open court. In addition coverage does not need to be continued coverage - because a contradictory policy exists WP:NTEMP. The subject became famous for a terror plot (conviction not needed). In addition to the worldwide WP:RS, the subject is even published in a terrorism book. See Richard Jewell for a person never convicted but suspected. I am sticking with my ivote. Lightburst (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely because of cases like Richard Jewell that we are extremely careful not to "suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have a healthy disagreement. I struck the bit about the subject's guilt. We do not choose who is notable. Notability happened to this subject through worldwide press just as it happened to Jewell. Lightburst (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that coverage is not "wide. A story attributed to The Guardian is marked as an Associated Press story, as is the BBC story. I removed a story attributed to the NY Times, after searching the paper's site for any mention of Livix, or of the title that was on the page and finding nothing. NYTimes, like other major American papers, does post breaking news wire service stories online, but does not keep them on the site permanently. I am assuming that this was the case here. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note however that the Stories form the San Francisco Chronicle, CTV Canada, and Fox News are all echos of the AP story that ran in early December and is already on the page in 3 separate footnotes. A single wire service story is a single source, even when echoed by several publications. There was a small burst of coverage at the time of the arrest, but very little afterwards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A shot heard round the world. This is how news works in the modern age. News agencies do not dispatch reporters in the internet age. Nearly every news agency uses the AP. I do not understand the dismissal of all major news stations and newspapers. We disagree on this one. Lightburst (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No - police speculations in (mostly) a single news cycle. Later determined to be, well, based quite literally crazy talk (no charge, minor (tried in military court - and there are many similar cases a year) weapons charge for roommate which led to 6 months in military prison). What is lacking here is WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to show that this has had any WP:LASTING significance. The initial suspicions were significant - following the investigation - these turned out to be a very soft whimper (to the point it took us, collectively here at AfD, quite some time to figure out that Livix wasn't even tried in court in the end). Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz I figured out that Livix was not charged the first day I came to this AfD. in addition notability does not require WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. See Noah Raby for an example (notable for being a liar 100 years ago) continued coverage has nothing to do with it. Livix is published in a terrorism book, in addition Livix is prominently mentioned in relation to assasination attempts on Obama. Even on our own Wikipedia page. And elsewhere: Times of Israel, NBC, etc. Notability is assured for this subject. Lightburst (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Raby has CONTINUEDCOVERAGE - e.g. from post-2000 - [1][2][3]. Livix has no coverage after 2015. Absent continuing coverage here - this WP:LASTING is not demonstrated.Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want to quote Bearcat here for purposes of showing why continued coverage is not required. He posted this on another AfD and I did not know if it is appropriate to link to the other AfD for fear of being accused of canvassing editors to the other AfD. I also will not ping Bearcat here for that same reason. Wikipedia does not have a requirement that an article topic still has as much current coverage as it may have garnered in the past, so the fact that the sources are from 2010 is not a problem — as long as enough of the sources are reliable, we simply don't care if they're newer or older. There are an incredible number of notable topics — dead or retired people, defunct organizations or companies, etc. — that we could not keep articles about at all if the notability requirement was that they were still getting coverage in the current news cycle. Even most former presidents of the United States would have to be deleted if that were the rule. Which is why it's not.Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat:, an experienced editor, to inquire whether he supports your use of his comment in this context. Lightburst, it is always best to add a link to the page where a comment you are citing can be found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, it's definitely a misfire to quote me in this context. What I was talking about in that comment was an organization that received a GNG-passing volume of coverage for doing something that passes our subject-specific notability criteria for organizations. It was definitely not intended to imply that people who fail our subject-specific notability standards for people are somehow exempted from ever having to have anything more than a WP:BLP1E blip of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We sometimes agree. However the person received significant coverage, and is published elsewhere on the WIKi and in a terror book. Lightburst (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The terrorism book with the Livix entry is from 2016. Also there is too much back and forth in the thread, so I will do my best not to add. Apologies to the XFD closer. WP:BLUDGEONINGLightburst (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Notable per WP:RS as once notable always notable. WP:NTEMP. and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Policy The question is whether the subject meets WP:GNG OR one of the other individual subject specific categories. That is our actual policy. Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eh ... WP:BLP is policy and WP:BLPCRIME is a section within that policy. The question is not whether a topic meets one policy *or* another - a topic must meet the requirements of *all* applicable policies. HighKing++ 16:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this page is an Wikipedia:Orphan, a good indication that the event was nt notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It is an indication of no such thing. It is an indication that nobody bothered to link categories. Additionally, I did not ping Bearcat or link to the other AfD because it is not appropriate WP:VOTESTACKWP:CANVASSING for reasons which I stated. I am surprised by your behavior. Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to misquote my words out of context, then I'm most certainly entitled to be informed of the fact so that I can respond. It's not "canvassing" for E.M. Gregory to have informed me that my name and words were invoked here, because I have an unconditional right to know where my name and words are being invoked. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting you was a mistake, For obvious reasons. I should have paraphrased your words to make my point. I have been in enough AfDs to know what would happen quoting you. Lightburst (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - and if at all Bearcat was anti-canvassed given that he was quoted to show support for retention here, which would (in a mentioning editor neutral probability space) indicate an a-priori probability in that direction. Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:PERP, people do not become notable on the basis of criminal allegations: if he didn't already have preexisting notability for other reasons before he was ever charged with anything, then he he has to be convicted, not merely charged, to clear the notability bar for crimimals. The fact that sources exist does not add up to a free exemption from having to pass PERP, either — in the absence of a conviction, that coverage just makes him a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Icewhiz your deletion of the Livix entry per on the Assassination threats against Barack Obama is premature and not appropriate. Your claim of BLP1E has not been supported by the editors. The section on that Assassination article is properly referenced and as I pointed out, it is widely reported and published. It does not serve our readers - and only serves to make this article and orphan to serve your desire to delete the article here. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sigh. you once again misleadingly cite the December 2018 AP story to the New York Times, but link it to wayback. This is a problem because from Wayback you cannot click through to the story the AP linked to to verify the assertion that A Palestinian urged Livix to assassinate Obama.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know that I did not author that article, and I did not add that section or that reference to the Assassination threats against Barack Obama. Another editor did. The fact that the NY Times carried the story of the AP is irrelevant. The AP story was picked up by nearly every news outlet. I will ping the person who added the Livix section to that article: User:FiredanceThroughTheNight Lightburst (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The BLP was released without charge. I WP:BLPREMOVEd content that was a severe WP:BLPCRIME vio - it has nothing to do with this AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will not edit war with you. An editor is supposed to have a WP:NPOV but your assessment and editing/reverting is simply POV pushing. Lightburst (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have raised the WP:BLPCRIME issue repeatedly. None of the editors arguing to keep this article have offered justifications for ignoring WP:BLPCRIME, unless we count Lightburst's argument (above) that :"The subject became famous for a terror plot (conviction not needed)."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think WP:BLPCRIME does apply to this case. Moreover, the entire story does not deserve to be included anywhere (an unidentified Palestinian reportedly encouraged Adam Everett Livix, who was residing in the West Bank at the time, to assassinate President Obama using a sniper rifle. Livix refused, ...). He finally was not even charged with this. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable per WP:RS as once notable always notable. WP:NTEMP. and WP:GNG. Noted in many WP:RS. The existence of all of these news reports establishes its notability, particularly in Palestine and Israel. I have tweaked the lead, so that the fact that the indictment was not prosecuted beyond its issuance is duly noted. His apprehension, arrest, detention and the subsequent events are notable, even as he was released. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There are definitely enough sources to keep this article. Note that this case was referred to in a published work on the subject of terrorism.[4] And of course, tons of major newspapers ran stories concerning the matter, i.e.[5][6] I think that the person is notable, but even if he's isn't, the incident must be notable. If necessary, we could rename the article after the alleged crime rather than the alleged suspect. We don't need to hide the person's name, because his name is already widely known from secondary sources.Worldlywise (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All the coverage here is from initial police stmts in December 2014 (including the book which just repeats this) + a little bit in 2015. We had trouble here even finding coverage of the decision not to charge and release the BLP. The lack of CONTINUEDCOVERAGE clearly shows no LASTING effect. Furthermore - this is a classic BLPCRIME situation - we have wide coverage of initial accusations by police. Then some mentions in media of a mental evaluation.... And then close to nothing. Icewhiz (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No compliance with WP:Before. Meets WP:GNG. There are lots of WP:RS, now in the article. WP:Hey and WP:NEXIST. If one had bothered to check the links provided at the top of this very page, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey ((u|7&6=thirteen)), this is the second time I've run across you at an AfD and both times you've (incorrectly and inappropriately) accused the nominator of failing to conduct a WP:BEFORE. Please stop. HighKing++ 16:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have conducted a through WP:BEFORE. 7&6=thirteen inserting Lulu.com as a source while claiming " lots of WP:RS" - is about as unconvincing an argument at AfD one could make. The initial wild accusation by police (based what the BLP here said, the BLP here subsequently released for "health reasons") got coverage - the assertion here in the nom wasn't lack of coverage of this initial media news cycle in late 2014 - but lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:PERP (lack of conviction - released without charge), WP:BLP1E. Lulu has been removed. Inserting Lulu.com and asserting lack of BEFORE. Quite peculiar. Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The grounds for the arrest have been characterized as suspicion to blow up Muslim holy places.[1] Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque was a likely target.[2]
These simply further demonstrate the continuing interest and relevance in these events and this man. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That the best you could find - and post here at AfD - is a Lulu.comWP:SPS and a friday sermon re-posted online - is an indication of lack of continuing interest - and lack of RS coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. There is coverage from many sources now in the article. This was an important event, reported in many countries and media. But you and I will have to agree to disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia needs to stop trying to backdoor BLP content in on the fact a guy did a crime one time. Especially when that crime led to few or no deaths. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, the purported "notability" arose from an allegation of criminal behaviour but there is no clear evidence that a conviction was secured. WP:BLPCRIME is very clear and specific in these circumstances. Topic fails GNG and WP:BLP. HighKing++ 16:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although one could blindly argue BLPCRIME, the totality of his criminal history and family history strongly suggests WP:GNG is the better guide, and there are lots of GNG sources, only some of which are in the article. -- GreenC 16:42, 8 August 2019 (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.