Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Queanbeyan stabbing attacks


 * 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Queanbeyan stabbing attacks

 * – ( 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 these individuals are not meeting of notability.


 * The subject also fails WP:EVENTCRIT which 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.


 * No such impact is found in the WP:ROUTINE news cycle this incident received refer to WP:NOTNEWS. These individuals were minors when this occurred, and appeared in the news. Simply appearing in routine news coverage does not equal or equate to being notable, consider WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of these individuals is limited and brief, if there ever was any. Going down the list at WP:NOTE, the subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage.


 * 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. Simply putting more information on how the individuals are doing in prison, and being behaved is not lasting notability. Sport and politics (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nom, please don't add canvassing templates to AfDs where canvassing is not occurring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

*Delete - Umm, this incident occurred nearly five months ago; WP:RAPID does not apply. A trial is WP:ROUTINE: every criminal in a fair legal system gets one, nothing noteworthy. A crime being "horrific" does not make it any more notable. The lack of a WP:LASTING impact, bursts of typical media coverage (WP:NOTNEWS), and the failure to address WP:RSBREAKING does, however, display how unnotable this attack is, at least in a standalone article. RSBREAKING also points out crimes, including this, need historical significance, not just widely-covered media. Nothing has been established.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I created this well-sourced article on recent horrific murder, and series of spree attacks that meets  WP:NCRIME. Both perps in jail awaiting trial scheduled to begin in October.  Some proson-system impace prison system impact due to one of the perps violent behavior causing difficulties in juvenile detention center, raising questions about where to incarcerate violent, ideologically-committed juveniles.  Crime being investigated as terrorism.  AfD inappropriate per WP:RAPID.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Where it is written that crimes "need historical significance" to to be notable? Certainly it is not required not at  WP:RSBREAKING, nor at WP:NCRIME, nor at WP:EVENTCRITERIA.  In fact, creating articles on widely-covered crimes when they occur is normal WP practice despite the fact that no crime can possibly have demonstrable LASTING coverage or "historical significance" when it happens.  This is why RAPID deletion is disparaged.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I should just ignore the section in WP:EVENTCRIT where it specifically mentions that crimes, even widely reported ones, are not notable unless something more makes them notable; hence my historical significance comment being the "more" per WP:LASTING.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." This is what WP:NOTNEWS states. And is a longstanding practice on WP to create articles on major events as they happen. No one is suggesting that you "ignore" policy.  Rather, this is a case where you and differ in our evaluation of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Were we not just discussing EVENTCRIT? Why did you just shift to NOTNEWS? Did the tidbit from EVENTCRIT contradict your beliefs? The same policy also notes that there is a "tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance". If you want to discuss NOTNEWS, you should also point out that it states most newsworthy events are not notable events. WP:RECENTISM also advices editors just like you on that. There is nothing to evaluate: there are just parts of policy you choose not to follow I'm sorry to say.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:HEY. Article has undergone a modest expand, source.  The length and intensity of this murderous 14-hour series of spree stabbings, bludgeonings many not have been apparent to Nom.  Other details have been added, including the fact that the judge has questioned an earlier judges order to embargo release of information to the press, and the unusual fact that one of the youths involved in a crime being investigated as Islamism-inspired terrorism was of aboriginal origin.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * keep following hey and additional late June sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very wide coverage across many months (April, May, June) establishes notoriety.  Lasting impact is demonstrated by the fact Melbourne had to install 200 "ugly" concrete bollards overnight in a bid to defend itself from attacks such as, specifically cited Queanbeyan, as noted by the Herald Sun on 23 June, not to mention that Victoria's top counter-terrorism officer has requested major security upgrades, including airport-style checking-in at public venues.  Hey, who here loves standing in line at the airport?  As the Herald says: "The face of Melbourne is being transformed by the spectre of terrorism", while citing Queanbeyan.  Not to WP:CRYSTALLBALL, but I hasten to note the court case for these murders starts October 25.  Any deletion is quite premature. XavierItzm (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above comments.  Greenbörg  (talk)  09:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:Notability (events) An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and due to the fact that this is WP:POV and WP:Point and this user has consistently tried to push an agenda of eliminating coverage of terrorism. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  04:39, 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.