Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Endeavour Hills stabbings (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

2014 Endeavour Hills stabbings
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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 incident is not meeting of notability.


 * This article was previously nominated, the main distilling of that was WP:WAIT, waiting has happened, and nothing significnt has occured showing the lasting impact of this event. In particular WP:EVENTCRIT 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. That has not been shown to have occurred here.


 * 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) 18:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Sport and politics, Can you please explain why you have put Template:Not a ballot atop this and a series of terrorism-related AfDs tha tyou created yesterday?   This is a highly irregular thing to do; this template  is usually added only after IPs and SPA's show up. After canvassing starts.  Or after someone spots an AfD on social media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy close 24 seconds to create this AfD including the template on the article is not an attempt to prepare the community for a deletion discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Total rubbish. The use of Show preview, and then doing all of the typing in the preview, and then pressing save changes is how things are done. Going look look they were saved within 25 does not mean they only 24 to create. That is like saying filling out a form to 20 seconds, when the content of the form was written in offline mode, and then saved online when finished. What a complete missing of the point, and complete attempt to close down a discussion, simply for specious arguments. Comment on the substance of the deletion. Sport and politics (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You were advised at WP:BEFORE B4 to check the talk page for previous nominations, and this topic had a previous AfD with unanimity of seven editors. The nomination's explanation for these seven editors is a humor essay?  Where is the evidence of preparation?  Thank you for a partial explanation of the 24 seconds, but the principle still applies, as there are a large number of nominations posted in a short period of time.  Instead of worrying about other editors shutting down this discussion, perhaps you should consider doing so yourself.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding template to a brand, spanking new new AfD is utterly inappropriate. WP:TROUT Nom for doing so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The above comments do not make any sense, and are pure opinion, based in WP:LIKE. The question is what template is being talked about? Sport and politics (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep well-sourced article about terrorist attack on a police station in Australia in peacetime that meet WP:NCRIME and that has had ongoing, WP:SIGCOV, see, for example gBooks search: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Focus on the content and not the contributor. This article is not notable enough to have a stand alone article, primarily for the reasons listed above. Simply going, I like this article, so keep it is unhelpful. Stating well-sourced is not enough here there must be notability from those sources, that is not established in this case, passing coverage is not enough, and minor interest is again not enough. Saying this is terrorism, therefore it goes in Wikipedia is again not based in any Wikiepida policies, it is pure opinion. What is the lasting notability of this event? Nil. What is the is the wider impact? None. What is the reporting aside from general news coverage? Very limited. This article is a prime example of why Wikinews is the place for these types of articles, and not Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not WP:BLUDGEON the discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lasting coverage. Besides 2014 coverage In depth in Guardian in 2016, And onward:  . Possibly since this was the beginning of a wave of militant ISIS activity in Australia - or for whatever reason - there is lasting in-depth coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I said three years ago, aside from extensive coverage in the Australian media, the incident also received widespread attention in international sources, including Canada, India, Israel, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States. Easily passes WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as another notable event up for deletion. Enough coverage for this article.  Greenbörg  (talk)  09:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per comments above. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, per common sense ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  04:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.