Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Thane stabbing


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Ya  sh  !   20:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 Thane stabbing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for events; no indication that this criminal act will "have enduring historical significance" or have "lasting effect". Wikipedia is not a news outlet. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep by analogy with similar events in smaller countries like the USA. Biwom (talk) 15:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Other things exist; each article is judged on its own merits. I would support deleting articles about domestic violence incidents that have little lasting notability. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * DeleteThis clearly not a subject worth the coverage in an encyclopedia, as for similar articles they should also be deleted.--Catlemur (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep massive loss of life, that type of event is very rare, I think without any precedent in India. - Gsvadds (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully disagree that 14 is "massive". That's relatively small compared to plane crashes, bus accidents, natural disasters, etc. Last December there was a stabbing in India with 20 victims  so this is not unprecedented. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - important event with big international coverage, so shoudn't be deleted. The Guardian BBC AlJazeera Telegraph Russia Today CNN El Mundo UOL Brazil I mean this type of event is not a routine in India or other Asian country like shootings in US, with many articles per year.... Again 331dot please stop giving wrong example with that stabbing incident with 0 deaths. Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  21:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a news outlet that just repeats what is in the news. You state that this is "important"- how is this tragic domestic event important? What is the "enduring historical significance" of this tragic event? Has it resulted in legal or policy changes in India, or any other tangible effect? 331dot (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NEVENT. Despite the larger number of deaths traditionally seen in domestic incidents, this remains a domestic incident. The people involved are non-notable so there's no target to redirect this to. Just because it received international coverage, this does not mean that it merits an article on WP, because a burst of news is not the same as enduring coverage. --M ASEM (t) 19:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep WP:GEOBIAS - can anyone imagine a similar incident in the US being successfully nominated for deletion? The National Western Complex shooting article, about a fight between outlaw motorcycle gangs with a single death was closed recently as no consensus. See, for example Category:2015 crimes in the United States and associated subcats. WP:NOTNEWS says "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" - in no way is that a prohibition of covering major, significant incidents with international coverage like this. AusLondonder (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A fight between organized gangs is different than a domestic incident. Other stuff exists. I would support deletion regardless of the nation involved. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * strong delete These ITN articles are devaluing the encyclopaedic merit of WP. Further, 1. a non-notable lunatic killing his family has ZERO repercussions whatsoever (unless some psychiatric revelation is made in the future (Stockholm syndrome) we can always recreate it) and 2. the article constitutes nothing but a few lines of the media (media is not an encylopaedia, which is why the top WP articles frown on media reports). Moreover, this was not a societal threat but an inside issue so its repercussions have not been demonstrated. Heck iread the Asian Age in MUMBAI the next day and it wasn't even highlighted but relegated.Lihaas (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "The top WP articles frown on media reports" … yesterday's featured article was almost entirely sourced through newspaper articles. The whole point of Wikipedia is that not everything has to be published in a book before it becomes significant.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  07:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per AusLondonder and EugenSimion. We have articles on stabbings in the U.S. where no one was killed, let alone fourteen people. The event has received large amounts of coverage in international media, and it's purely WP:CRYSTAL to claim that this event will have no lasting significance.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  07:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't CRYSTAL to claim it won't, it's CRYSTAL to claim that it will. Once it does, then it can get a page, but the article shouldn't exist in anticipation of it having significance; it needs to be significant already. Other stuff exists; the article you cite is a very different situation, which led to a federal terrorism investigation.  This is not terrorism, but someone killing their family, a domestic incident with little significance outside the family(unless there has already been policy or legal changes in India because of this incident). Wikipedia is not a newspaper that parrots the press.  331dot (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources presented by from numerous international reliable publications clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Notability (events), Notability (events), and Notability (events). Cunard (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No one denies this got a lot of attention, but what is this tragedy's "enduring historical significance" and/or "lasting effect" as called for by WP:NEVENT? 331dot (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From Notability (events): "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." It is too early to tell whether this event has "enduring historical significance" or "lasting effect". Therefore, I default to supporting retention, particularly because this event was "very widely covered in diverse sources" from international sources so is "very likely to be notable". I echo the closer of Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident: "What is needed now is an end to discussion and a bit of perspective. Wait a couple of weeks, or a month, then re-run this if that seems like a good idea. I'm quite certain, and I think most of you would agree, that it will be much easier to ascertain consensus one way or another at that point when we have a bit of distance from the current cable news cycle, and since we are not on a deadline, and since I don't see WP:HARM as an intrinsic issue here if the article is kept at least for awhile, we should take the time to get it right when it comes to the question of whether this topic is Wiki-worthy or not, rather than basing that decision on a flawed AfD that unfolded in a fluid news environment and an overheated Wiki-environment." Cunard (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Very unusual for a mass stabbing to have this many casualties. Rossbawse (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. A mass murder of 14 people is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per massive coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per massive coverage indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep enough coverages for the article. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 06:54, 14 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.