Talk:Nicholas Rossi

Image of Alaverdian with Mike Pence

No actual reason has been given for a user's repeated attempts to delete this image, so let's start a section it. For what it's worth, I see no reason to remove the image (which has been on the article for years at this point), which illustrates the article well, particularly his days lobbying politicians as a child welfare advocate. MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Alahverdian lobbied the RI state government. He did not lobby at the national level, nor did he lobby in Indiana while Pence was governor. Given you have no reason for adding the image, it should be deleted. JerrySlimefeld (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of image of Mike Pence

The image of Mike Pence implies political connections with Alahveridian that do not exist. As a result, we have made the decision that the picture is not to be included in the article. This decision was made by the Wikipedia community as a whole and reflects our collective opinion. JerrySlimefeld (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

See section immediately above this one. MrOllie (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Given you haven't cited this claimed decision "made by the Wikipedia community as a whole", your argument carries zero weight. I checked the talk-page archives and found none. But you've been trying this for several years and multiple other editors oppose, so there's no assumption you are correct either. DMacks (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly been a long time since I was accused of vandalism, so that's fun. OP now blocked, pretty clearly trolling, so I think we're done here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"Nicholas Rossi admits for first time that he used fake identity"

Latest update in The Times, which may be useful: Home, Marc. "Nicholas Rossi admits for first time that he used fake identity". The Times. Retrieved 17 October 2024. (Archive) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Difficult to follow

This article is difficult to follow. For some reason, the events are discussed in various different sections and are out of chronological order. For example, the "biography" section references, without any context, an accusation of rape, as if we're suppose to know what the Wikipedia article is talking about. Then, in a different section much further in the article, it finally tells us about the investigation and conviction. Someone should rewrite this article to flow in chronological order. It sucks trying to make sense of what's going on when this is presented as a Pulp Fiction-style story. If nobody else does it, I guess I could try. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. There is a lot to unpack but the current article seems to jump around a ton. Jjazz76 (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I gave it a go. I think it's easier to read and understand now, but it may need some more editing. I broke it up into sub-sections based on decade, which might not be the best solution, but it's good enough for now. Although I did make some content edits to excise a little bit of excessive detail, this is more or less the same article. Just with less confusing flow. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

From a quick skim it looks good, thanks for doing that. Primefac (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I just deleted a big chunk of text. However, not much content was actually removed. It was mostly redundant citations; trivial coverage of trivial events, such as court dates; and stuff that could easily be summarized using later secondary sources that looked back on the events (instead of more primary-ish sources that were reporting on events as they happened). Hopefully, that also makes the article a bit easier to read. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move as the two weeks since the RM's opening have seen the news media move on, which remedies the concerns of the editors who gave their qualified support to the move and as a result allows a consensus to be formed. (closed by non-admin page mover) –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Nicholas Alahverdian → Nicholas Rossi – High-quality reliable sources have very widely settled on referring to the subject as "Rossi" over "Alahverdian". Should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME.

Examples: The New York Times, The BBC, The Guardian, Sky News, People, NBC News, The Telegraph, The Independent, CBS News, CNN, Boston Herald, The Times, London Evening Standard, NZ Herald, Irish Independent, Associated Press, etc.

It's also how he was referred in the press release announcing his death from the Utah Department of Corrections: RachelTensions (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Given the above evidence regarding WP:RS usage, I'd agree that a move is justified, though it might be advisable to leave it a week or so while the news of his death moves out of the media cycle. While redirects deal with most issues (there is currently a 'Nicholas Rossi' redirect to the article), it can get confusing sometimes to move articles in the middle of edits by multiple individuals. There's no real urgency that I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that the article should refer to him as the more widely used "Rossi." As AndyTheGrump mentioned, it's best to do this move after the news cycle passes to avoid any major mixups with edits. PreferTheCold (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Based on the numerous sources shown, this makes a lot of sense. PickleG13 (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. Hotrodguy84 (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Probably isn't right. Certainly more people know him as Nicholas Alahverdian. For example, in pretty much all the Cr1tiKal videos on him, I don't think he's referred to as Nicholas Rossi once. Great Mercian (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

"For example, in pretty much all the Cr1tiKal videos on him, I don't think he's referred to as Nicholas Rossi once"🤓 JennyTewls (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Well where else would you have expected me to have heard of him? I don't typically seek out news reports about rapists. Great Mercian (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't base decisions regarding article titles on the viewing habits of one particular contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases article titles on how the subject is most commonly referred in English-language reliable sources, not how they’re referred by a YouTuber. RachelTensions (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure I have a solid opinion on this case, but I have also been invested in this article from very early in its history, and the word that comes into my head about this request is "recentism" (which my computer seems to not think is a word but does have its own page). Alahverdian was born as such, was Rossi growing up (on account of stepfather, one assumes), seems to have spent most of his adult life primarily as Alahverdian (he "died" under that name), and then was reborn as Knight. I suspect the courts issued their warrants for Rossi because that's the name he used in Utah when he committed the crimes. Is the press calling him Rossi now because that's how we was convicted? Probably. Is that enough for us to change the article name? That's what I'm not sure about. I would say that due to the sensationalism I'm very weakly in favour of leaving things be for now, though I also recognise that after this news cycle blows over we'll probably never hear either name again. Primefac (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting sure seems like a good way of getting a solid consensus considering most of the opposition is based on allowing the subject to leave the news cycle before changing the title. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.