Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 11

• Note nominator has now entered a Keep vote below. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:BEFORE, because if you had run a simple search or two on this incident you would have been able to judge it's notability more accurately.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Actually since this article is about a criminal act as opposed to a criminal, I would suggest that the applicable notability guideline is
  WP:CRIME. But I guess it's the thought that counts. ;) Coretheapple (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - As per nominee. --Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 12:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by !voting.. irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The is patently NOT a
  WP:GNG because of the worldwide scope and depth of coverage and because of the impact of the event on the current dominating topic in Swedish politics. That said, it needs expansion. It is more productive to help expand articles on obviousl notable events than to delete them. Here is a little [31] of the material that can and should be added to this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

— Note to closing admin:

AfD

.

@

WP:NCRIME definitely does, which is why I changed my !vote to "keep." Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ultimately, this is a local crime story with no serious encyclopedic value. The nominator was correct in bringing it to this forum. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Local? it has been reported extensively by international media. No serious encyclopedic value? Personal opinions weights lightly over guidelines. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. NOTNEWS applies to this tragic event. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC) changing to keep see below. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am expanding/improving this article. However, even when it was written it could not be accurately described as a "local crime story". "Local crime stories" in Sweden do not get intensive coverage in the British, American, French and other foreign media. Nor do Prime Ministers rush to the scene of a "local crime" with "No serious encyclopedia value" in the hope of difusing popular response, which, in this case, had included a nationwide series of premeditated attacks in which groups of men beat up black and brown-skkined people in thestreet and attack asylum centers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Coretheapple, NOTNEWS does not apply. I have explained that below several times.BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:HEY. Editors who weighed in above need to at least look at expanded article (nothing fancy, just a quick expansion) an enormous amount of sourcing is available (most intensely from Britain papers for those searching in English,) more is available in other European languages and, of course, in Swedish. this: [32] gives a sense of the early coverage. The stabber (there is no doubt of his identity) is now a poster child for what the Swedish and international press report as presumably thousands of adult, male asylum seekers who lied to authorities by claiming to be underage so that they could take advantage of generous benefits and fast-track paths to legal status available to minors arriving without adult guardians, and also a poster child in the debate over whether asylum seekers who create crimes should be deported or allowed to serve their penalties and stay in Sweden. Except, he's not a child. He's a fully mature six-footer with a beard who all the reporters who have seen him guess to be 20 or so. The incident is reported to have sparked a round of deliberate attacks on asylum seekers and asylum centers by nativists. Coverage will obviously continue as this case moves towards trial and sentencing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Stick a knife in this one, it's done. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTNEWS does not apply. This is a article with great sourcing of national and international media. BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This article goes far beyond whet is meant by not news because both Swedish and foreign papers have continued to run stories about it, and to cover details as they come out, and because it is discussed as a driver of political reactions to immigration I Sweden.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Agree with User:Lugnuts. User:BabbaQ has a point, but on balance I would agree with Lugnuts.AppliedStatistics (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:GNG – if we were to do this, we would have hundreds of pages relating to individual crimes, each presenting its own take on the refugee crisis, and that is exactly what the COATRACK policy is designed to avoid. Once this article is stripped back to the bare facts about the incident itself, it falls into the NOTNEWS category. Aspirex (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This article is not a coatrack.
  WP:WINAC: "Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• NOTNEWS does not apply to a article that has great sourcing from media all over the world. Its not a local story or little importance or no press coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article is extremely well sourced and notable. I think the delete votes should re-look at the article and see the new additions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Spirit Ethanol Thank you for helping clean up the article. I wonder if you would consider withdrawing this AFD, given the amount of attention that the crime continues to generate in around the world and in Sweden where this incident has become a highly charged signifier at a time of burgeoning political tensions about the enormous wave of illegal immigrants. see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Paros (Greece) rape.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

talk) 16:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - NOTNEWS, wikinews is thataway nableezy - 17:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTNEWS is irrelevant here as the article has great sourcing and is about an event that has been reported on by plenty of international press.BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnt address NOTNEWS at all. Which, like it or not, is certainly relevant. nableezy - 07:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article doesn't meet
  WP:NEWSEVENT. As tragic as it is, there's no evidence that there's any lasting effects or significant coverage beyond the usual sensationalist coverage of a spectacular murder. NEWSEVENT is pretty clear that media's criteria for publishing is different from Wikipedia's notability criteria which means that an event can receive a lot of media coverage without being notable. Sjö (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• How do you know anything about lasting effects? It has been a week or so since it happened. that is purely speculations.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, there's no evidence of lasting effects. E.g. no quick policy changes or resignations, as can happen as a result of other events. I might ask, how do you know there will be lasting effects? Sjö (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this article covers one of the most reported on and talked about murders in Swedish history for a loooong time. It covers WP:NEWSEVENT and WP:GNG. And no, the users claiming this is a "local story" means "this is a non British or American" story, simply because is a story from Swedens doesnt make it a local story. This event has been reported by international press as well as evident by the articles great sourcing. This article should be kept as it is notable and follows the WP:GNG guidelines an is filled with great sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTNEWS is a stupid guideline used to justify deletion for simply any article that deletionists wants to be deleted. Wikipedia IS NEWS and is based on news. BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT isnt a guideline, its Wikipedia policy. Disliking that doesnt change it, and your dislike of that policy does not in any way invalidate the view of those who do accept that policy. nableezy - 07:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The murder along with wide reaction and revenge act(s) by mobs warrant a page, see
  talk) 22:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What on Earth? The nominator has added a keep !vote? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could be because the article was modified, sources added it is now still in the news, so notnews certainly doesn't apply. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NCRIME. If you feel differently about the nom but cannot withdraw it, I would suggest striking out your original nomination, as you are permitted to do. Coretheapple (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete
  WP:NOTNEWS - every single tragedy and stabbing cannot have its own Wikipedia article. AusLondonder (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Also, if you're going to create an article like this, at least spell it "centre" AusLondonder (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British spelling because coverage of this Swedish crime has been so massive in Britain? Interesting point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"center"/"centre" is spelt "centrum" in Swedish AusLondonder (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• IDONTLIKEIT does not apply. Does every single tragedy have an article? I did not know that. No, seriously, only notable "tragedies" and stabbings are notable and should have articles such as this one. NOTNEWS does not apply as this event has received attention for plenty of international media and has created a debate over these centers. BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 12:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete:
  WP:LASTING apply. Most of the article is about a crime and the immediate responses. If indeed it leads to policy changes etc. it can be recreated. Insofar as it is related to the immigration debate, it should be present in that article, summarized and in context. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Jason Margolis [33] on The World (radio program) on talking about how this case has sparked patrolling by vigilantes in Stockholm. Impact is verified.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this article the source he uses doesn't make such a clear connection. Also, I removed a sentence in the article that erroneously said that the police had made a connection between the murder and the attacks. The stated purpose of the gangs according to reliable sources was to clean up among criminal street children. Sjö (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• changing to Keep. Reconsidering, based on
  WP:NCRIME, which is what we should be looking at. The scope of the media coverage is such as to warrant an article. Nominator's reconsideration was persuasive. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per E.M.Gregory. --Article editor (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and rename) Notability of this event seems to be clearly established with widespread domestic and international news coverage, as well as significant societal and policy implications in Sweden. I don't like the title of the article however, suggest renaming to something like "Murder of Alexandra Mezher". User2534 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some examples of the significant societal and policy implications? I live in Sweden and I can't think of any policy implications, and the significant societal implications are limited to increased fear, as far as I know. Sjö (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 13:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• I note that most of those who want to delete claims WP:NOTNEWS is relevant. while its not, as this article subject has been in world media as evident by the great sourcing, and has ignited the debate over immigration not only in Sweden. BabbaQ (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"NOTNEWS" was my first reaction. However, a few article improvements demonstrated the subject is clearly not covered by that policy, so I changed from delete to keep. Article still needs work. Coretheapple (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per E.M.Gregory + notable fact which molds public opinion in Sweden and Europe. Stefanomione (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing user: Even the nominator has added a Keep !vote.BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That has been noted several times. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, seriously.
  WP:NOTNEWS is still policy, and relevant for this article. Huldra (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You can not claim WP:NOTNEWS when it has been established that the article is notable beyond that. It makes your !vote irrelevant. This subject has reached national and international attention and been the foundation for discussion about immigration as well. A crime article doesnt automatically fall under NOTNEWS. You do not even like most Deletionists at this discussion take the time to make your argument beyond some "drive-by" policy claim. --BabbaQ (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh stop it. As user Sjö has pointed out: this incidence has had no lasting consequences in Sweden (or elsewhere, AFAIK). Yes, I know there are some editors on Wikipedia who thinks that each and every murder committed by a Muslim (the vast majority of Somalis are Muslims, after all) is notable. I´m not one of them. And you are not getting to decide which votes are relevant.....or not. Huldra (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Huldra, can you cite sources establishing that the perp is Muslim? I had not seen that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:E.M.Gregory: Nope, but according to Religion in Somalia, 99,8% of the population is Muslim; therefor I would say there is a 99,8% chance that the killer is Muslim, Huldra (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think this is a perfect example of how reasonable folks can disagree and interpret WP guidelines differently. I understand the positions of both sides, but in my opinion this goes beyond being a news story. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom. Donottroll (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is long precedent for tragedies that receive widespread coverage and analysis--as this one has--to also have an article on Wikipedia. I don't believe NOTNEWS applies in this case, and I think it's fairly telling that even the nominator has switched their position on this article, as has been noted several times above me in the discussion. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Disruptive behavior, two editors, who have argued aggressively for deletion, have gon through the article removing sources and material. I am aware that I can go through and pt every source back up, dispute the tags they have hung and so forth./ But, to me, it is a form of
  WP:WIKIHOUNDING engaged in by editors with endless time to devote who thereby make writing and defending an article on a notable event that some editors find not to their liking nearly impossible to do because of the exorbitant amount of time they force an editor like me to devote to defending a good article under POV attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If you feel you are being hounded, you should report the editor(s) to WP:AN/I, and action should be taken, if appropriate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. If you think removing The Sun from the article is hounding I will propose a

WP:BOOMERANG. AusLondonder (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

That removal is a typical piece of the

WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that makes editing aversive, and drives good editors away. The Sun (United Kingdom) is the largest newspaper in Britain, you and I may not like The Sun, but coverage in The Sun is evidence of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

We're talking about using an unreliable source to source a statement of fact. Removing that source and replacing it with a "citation needed" tag is IMO well within policy. If you do feel hounded, I must point out that neither here nor the article's talk page is the right venue to report that.

WP:AN/I would be much better. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note that this story is back in the international headlines today because perp has been shown to have lied about his age, claiming to be 15 when he is in his early twenties. And this turns out to be a common practice among young male migrants who want to live in Sweden.[34].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two death cases with similar historical impact (on public opinion / in behaviour science):

• Murder of Kitty Genovese. The murder gave social psychology a new term : bystander effect.
• Death of Cristina and Violetta Djeordsevic in Italy. The case sparked off international attention, because of the typical bystander effect (as seen on this photograph [35]).

A public opinion shaker and mover as the

Actually, the murder of Kitty Genovese is a good illustration of the difference between a clearly notable murder and this case which is not. The Kitty Genovese case had a lasting effect because it led to a new term. The 2016 stabbing has had no lasting effects of that kind. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wide references for greater socio-political effect than one person being killed, not only the sadly expected vigilante attacks in "revenge" on people who had nothing to do with it, but also the issues of overcrowding of migrants and documenting the age of a criminal. '''tAD''' (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The connection to the vigilante attacks is weak at best. Please note that the took place in a different town about 500 km away and were reported in reliable sources as intended to target criminal street children. The discussions about immigrants and crime, housing for immigrants and determining the age of young asylum seekers have been alive for a long time before the stabbing of Miss Mehzer, which means that the stabbing has created no new discussions. There have been no new terms in psychology or otherwise, no resignations of public officials and no changes in policy. In short there is as of now no proof of enduring notability, unless you count the burst of news reports (which per

WP:TOOSOON. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Sjö, the only thing that is too soon here, is this nom. And this case has already had effects. No lasting effects? It happened a week and a half ago... do not speculate. And its not claims it is fact that it has had an impact in Swedish society.BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sjö, I think you're being extremely picky on the criteria here. After all, neither the

Trollhättan school attack led to any dramatic concrete lasting consequences of that nature you're calling for either. To me this incident seems to be well on par with both of those incidents, which is mainly on the society shock/trauma level due to a sensitive and relatively new/unusual incident, measured by the widespread media coverage, so if you're really arguing for your point I would suggest you propose those two articles being deleted as well, and probably numerous similar articles. User2534 (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:POINT AusLondonder (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: There is absolutely no sane justification for deleting or otherwise downgrading this article, not to mention that doing so would likely be seen by all and sundry as self-censorship. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Back in the news cycle [36] and it hasn't even gone to trial yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note new article Soldiers of Odin that substantiates impact of this attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced claims don't substantiate anything. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Falsehood. Please look at sourcing on Soldiers of Odin page before making untrue statements.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a friendly note to remind people that extended discussions on deletion pages tend to impede new participants and also delay closings. Coretheapple (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't "extended discussion" sort of the point or an AFD? Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If it's just one editor criticising everyone who puts forward good-faith arguments in favour of deletion, as they also did at WP:Articles for deletion/Murder of Ashley Ann Olsen, it can make the process more difficult. It is also, in my view, an attempt to win an argument by exhausting and overwhelming other editors AusLondonder (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2016 (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.