Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Hanover stabbing

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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

2016 Hanover stabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

These discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies, so I shall be as full as possible in laying out all of them. This is for an actual discussion about notability.

• This incident was given an article following a stabbing incident. WP:RAPID applies to state that this individual is not meeting of notability.

• One major issue is the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in parts of the background. Who determined the significance of this self-constructed notability other than the article creator?

• The subject also fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advises writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable.

• No such impact is found in the WP:ROUTINE news cycle this incident received refer to WP:NOTNEWS. This individual was a minor when this occurred, and appeared in the news. Simply appearing in routine news coverage does not equal or equate to being notable, consider WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of the individual it is limited and brief, if there ever was any. Going down the list at WP:NOTE, the subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage.

• I am now going to quote from WP:RSBREAKING: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS". The majority, if not all, of the coverage for this incident was from breaking news, creating a clear lack of reliable secondary sources. Sport and politics (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a particularly notable terror event. If this is kept, perhaps the article should be rephrased (or better sources found supporting the claim that the policeman underwent life-saving surgery at the train station instead of in hospital). —Kusma (t·c) 13:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ample sourcing. Additional book sources ([1] [2]). Additional news later in 2017 regarding a close relative and similar action ([3] [4]). Case is somewhat unique in that this is a women attacker in the west.Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources are out there, just as User:Icewhiz says. Article just needs editor willing to invest time to imrpove it. Nomination, in its assertion that this is supported solely by breaking news stories, demonstrates Nom's failure to search for sources WP:BEFORE starting AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I moved the article to disambig because there is also an October 2016 Hamburg stabbing attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanover and Hamburg are a hundred miles apart. Jim Michael (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*My bad. thanks for fixing this Jim.E.M.Gregory (talk)

• Keep - First ever Islamic State attack in Germany. If that is not encyclopedic, then what is? XavierItzm (talk)
• Keep - The perpetrator was a 15-year-old girl. Jim Michael (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And.....? that is a demonstration of what? That comment is an invitation to create original research and cast negative aspersions. It is not reasoning, it is just opinion. It has no bearing on the notability of this article, and does not elevate the article beyond being simply news. I would also like to draw attention to WP:BLP, as the individual is still very much alive. Sport and politics (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - First IS attack in Germany which is notable. Passes WP:NEVENT. Greenbörg (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No it does not, that is giving the event undue weight, which is again opinion, and original research through synthesis, this also fails to be verified, it is just a claim. I do wish users would use wikinews for this kind of event. Sport and politics (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sport, You seem to be unfamiliar with our policies on sourcing. This first is verified by DW, a WP:RS. You also seem to be almost completely unfamiliar (evidenced by copy-past nominaitons that fail to match articles you bring to AfD, and by tagging new pages for process tampering) with the AfD process, where editors generally respect "first" instances of social phenomena (i.e., "first female" to enter a profession or office or first soldier killed in a war,) as valid claims to notability. Similarly, unusual profiles, such as a 15-year-old girl perpetrating a stabbing attack, is a routine sort of indication of notability on the valid grounds that unusual kinds of cases generate more coverage in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is notable because? A user said it was? That is in no way comparable to the event listed above. Today will be a first for hundreds of things, they are not all going to get articles simply for being firsts. They must be more than just notable through opinion. I still cannot see the volume of how much blinkering there is that everything which is of this subject is somehow worth being on here. These are just news events, and not notable beyond that. Wikinews exists for these events, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is disheartening to see it being destroyed by salacious news items like this. Another user was right about the articles in this category, there is a better chance of peace on the Korean Peninsular being brokered, than getting through to the must keep everything from a chip pan fire to fender bender brigade. Sport and politics (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per above comments. For anyone interested in further improving the article there's much more context to be added regarding the suspect's brother Saleh S. who a couple weeks before the stabbing attempted to firebomb a shopping mall in the same city, and had actually introduced Safia S. to ISIL-members in Turkey. [5] A suggestion might even be to rename the article under a "Safia and Saleh S. attacks" banner somehow, and include all about this significant case. User2534 (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and due to the fact that this is WP:POV and WP:Point and this user has consistently tried to push an agenda of eliminating coverage of terrorism. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:42, 7 September 2017 (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.