Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Nahid Almanea

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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Nahid Almanea (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)

Non-notable murder. Page was written as a POV fork taking sources completely out of context to suit an agenda '''tAD''' (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete – WP:RS has been met, although much of the notability revolves around speculation of the motivation. If deleted do not object to recreation should the hate crime aspect is found to be valid.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS - violent crimes happen all the time. even if this is what it has been presented as, a hate crime, they also happen all the time. no indication there has been or will be any lasting significance or impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, sources indicate notability. But I want to hear more about the nominator's claim that "page was written as a POV fork taking sources completely out of context to suit an agenda". A fork from what other article? Out of context how? What's the agenda? These things may all be true, but you can't just throw them out there without explaining. Everyking (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is notable about it? So far there is just WP:ROUTINE coverage of a murder. There isnt any coverage of public protests, there is no diplomatic cross boarder uproar. there is no indication there is any lasting impact. no "hijab protection law"s passing through parliament or or indication the city council is discussing a "no public hijab" law to "protect" women from bias attacks . there is no international coverage. no series of other attacks that the media is framing as a "Essex is a no go zone for muslims". While this has the potential for notability, its not moved in any of the ways that would actualize that potential. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That coverage doesn't look "routine" to me. Everyking (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First of all, the individual who nominated this article for deletion should not even be allowed to edit on topics related to Islam, since his recent article creations clearly show that he has considerable animosity towards Islam. Secondly, there are many sources which substantiate this thus making it notable. 80.42.78.15 (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Notability of this article stems primarily from media speculation. Yes, speculation. Wishful thinking does not make an article notable. Investigation is ongoing and is so far inconclusive. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No encyclopediac value in this entry.--Flexdream (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per user Everyking. No reason to delete per extensive sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Restore when there are secondary sources, but right now we just have news media reporting the news, and that's a good example of a primary source. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. My Lord, there are incredibly reliable sources documenting this online. Take your pick: HuffPost UK, The Guardian, BBC, Mirror, International Business Times. Al Bawaba, Best Daily, London Evening Standard, and the list goes on and on. British media in particular is all over this, especially with Islamophobia being in the news. Clearly and unambiguously notable. Why did this have to be relisted twice!? --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also passes WP:N/CA. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2015 (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.