Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Moscow beheading


 * 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 delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 Moscow beheading

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article lacks any serious notability, it only received coverage outside Wikipedia due to its shock value. Catlemur (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Non-notable event only getting coverage for shock value. - Iago Qnsi (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - should have been speedy deleted -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 13:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - very limited coverage and per WP:NOTNEWS. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per everyone else. Definitely goes against WP:NOTNEWS. Parsley Man (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This, while a sad and disturbing event, does not nearly have any notability outside of it's shock "appeal". RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh 666  00:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. ansh 666 00:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOTNEWS. --Stang 07:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: A single atrocious act does not necessarily make a person notable. Specifically, according to WP:PERP perpetrators of single acts are not notable unless "the victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure... [or] the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic [emphasis mine] event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." This event got lots of coverage because it was so shocking, but I do not believe anyone would call the victim renowned, or the act historic (in any case, it's too soon for the latter). ubiquity (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to closing Admin: Please also close Articles for deletion/Gyulchehra Bobokulova, which was redirected here. ubiquity (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Closed as a WP:BOLD redirect. ansh 666 00:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as unlikely for improvements. SwisterTwister   talk  02:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, for WP:NOTNEWS, and for the fact that it has no importance today (nor will it in the future). Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:22, 8 March 2016 (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.