Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Thane stabbing (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 Keep as this seems convincingly clear enough (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  05:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 Thane stabbing
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not news. Everyday there are a few crime related news that gets media coverage and then forgotten in India. Greek Legend (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Second comment There are many crime cases which are remembered years after but they don't have any Wikipedia articles as "2004 Siwan double murder" (two young men were drenched in acid and killed by a criminal politician). "1984 Vinod Mehta murder" ( a senior cop stabbed to death with his eyes gouged out in 1984 by criminals). I didn't know anything about previous nomination. In the previous nomination the nominator mentioned about historical significance of a crime related news, public the protests against the crime. Those who vote keep are only looking at the number. There was no public protest as he killed his own family of 14. Till today this is still a breaking news. It's not like those American cases where someone enters a school and stabs random kids, or random people. I know more about Indian crime and Indian news. International coverage is not enough. Greek Legend (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. There was relatively clear consensus to keep four days ago, and I don't think anything's changed since then. /wiae   /tlk  14:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This isn't just some person stabbing someone else, the person murdered 14 people.&#42;Treker (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and snow close discussion per above; (starting a new nomination just a few days after 1st is completely pointless) That's an 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 - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  16:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is not routine, that needs to be made clear in the article, as well as any other "enduring historical significance" that this has. Each event should be judged on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: are we seriously going to be relisting this page for discussion every few days? Surely that's not normal practice, is it? JMWt (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not a case of mass stabbing. This is about a psycho killing his own family members. The family was large-that's the reason of 14 deaths. If the family would have been three members then it would look natural. This is not about deleting non-American articles. The news remained headlines for few hours and then dropped by Indian media. I didn't see it as headlines or as top ten news from next day. This is a breaking news. American, European families are generally small. So, this is getting wrong importance. Greek Legend (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per my previous discussion, which was closed without comment and seemingly not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and policies like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT; this event does not yet have "enduring historical significance". I'm also not entirely sure this actually had "massive coverage" as claimed(news services share stories), and even if it did, Wikipedia does not parrot the press. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per community consensus. Biwom (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty of reliable sourcing. BabbaQ (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Already kept very recently. You can't carry on nominating something until you get the result you want. We already have clear consensus to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 23 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.