Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Hamburg stabbing attack

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. Killiondude (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Hamburg stabbing attack

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

Sadly, things like this happen all the time. It is newsworthy today, but per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT, not notable. Natureium (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is an absolutely extraordinary crime, making headlines all over the world, from America to Asia. Even the police confirms this.--Greywin (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - this article has multi-national news coverage, notability is extremely evident Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. All murders are tragic, but not all are notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing unusual about murder being in the breaking news cycle for a few days; in fact, WP:NOTNEWS explicitly warns us about it! If that were somehow not enough, our notability guidelines for events also warns us that a crime being violent does not translate to notability. It was too soon to create an article when you could not possibly determine any lasting significance, and to say there will be is crystalballing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, that he was an Asylum seeker whose application for legal resident status had been rejected had recently been rejected; and the fact that according to the page, had the couple not separated, perp would have had a chance at gaining legal resident status in Germany. A rather dramatic revenge killing. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except nothing. Nowhere does it say the perp's background is synonymous with notability. No where does it say Wikipedia is a drama.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Watch this if you dare (explicit). The eyewitness - obviously no German - says at 1:10: "They cut the head of the baby." [1] If this is a normal crime, in which normality do you live? In Germany, Europe this is everything but normal. It's absolutely exceptional. It is the sickest **** I ever saw in this city, in this country, on this continent.--Greywin (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Greywin: - I'm on your side of the discussion, but it just being a horrible, non-ordinary, crime doesn't make it notable. It's the global coverage received (partly as a response to that) that makes it. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, thank you. But the global coverage is based on the exceptionality. And I had to read the sentence: "Sadly, things like this happen all the time." in the introduction above. So my post can be read mainly as a reply to that.--Greywin (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENTCRIT ("our notability guidelines for events") is cited as an argument for deletion, but EVENTCRIT actually reads: «Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources.» This event was covered by media (as cited in the article) as far away as Switzerland, Pakistan, Sweden, and the New York Times and the Washington Post. This event is so remarkable that the arguably most prestigious newspaper in Germany, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, actually broke its policy of "not report[ing] on ethnic, religious or national allegations of suspected offenders" in this case and appended a lengthy note for their reasons, including that this is a "public interest" case.. In the same article, the Süeddeutsche reports how the AfD, already the third largest party in Germany, immediately exploited the event for political gain in Parliament. If anything, WP:EVENTCRIT actually supports keeping this article. XavierItzm (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:RAPID.--Shrike (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources are global, including Switzerland, Pakistan, Sweden, and the New York Times and the Washington Post. The article therefore needs be kept because of WP:NCRIME. XavierItzm (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:RAPID and because worldwide coverage meets WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. The worldwide coverage meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has clearly received significant coverage. Polyamorph (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2018 (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.