Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Ellwangen police raid


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 Ellwangen police raid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Likely failing WP:EVENT. While this was picked up internationally (seems all based on the same original Reuters agency report), reporting focussed on and around the date it happened. Therefore, this lacks persistence of reporting. Analysis in the aftermath seems limited. While there has been political commentary, this is all in the wider context of the migration debate and not necessarily centred on this event. Therefore I believe this is run-of-the-mill news reporting of a non-notable crime/event with lacking enduring significance on its own. Also worth considering that German WP does not have an article on this. While irrelevant in this project, I usually consider this indicatively. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongest Keep This case was in nationwide media for weeks and the debate about it contributed very strongly to the actual situation between the CSU and CDU parties. Media like Die Zeit wrote about the case weeks later, and there are much, much more sources to be evaluated (Dobrindt's interview alone - see Die Zeit article - strongly fueled the debate). This nomination is incomprehensible and defective. The German WP is missing an article, but this is only a reason to write one - which I won't do there because there are more of such nominations for unclear reasons over there. Above that all there is good international reception and more to add. Addititon: For the fact alone, that politicians of the Green Party are praising police operations, the article has to be kept. This is truly unique in German political history.--Greywin (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I recently expanded the article massively, adding a dozen of further sources, national as well as international. I also added that the case was ruled by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany which should make clear that it is definitely a case of national and international interest. Thus I appeal to the nominator to withdraw his nomination.--Greywin (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , many thanks for continuing the work. I'd like to pick up some of the points you made above. Firstly, the Federal Constitutional Court did not "rule" on the case, it just found a potential lawsuit inadmissible. Looking at the 2016 statistics, the vast majority of cases brought to the court are not admitted. Surely, being one of thousands of rejected cases does not make this one notable. Secondly, I am not convinced that Mr Dobrind's comments are suitable to establish notability of this event. While he spoke about the general topic of deportations, the Ellwangen incident was used exemplary for such practices. Your references 15 and 16 don't not mention Ellwangen at all, 14 has it in passing. The Bloomberg article uses the incident as starting point before spending most of the time discussing, again, the general topic. Most of the sources are centered around the date of the incident with significant tapering off - of course some follow-ups here and there are to be expected. I'd like to use the 10 year test: will this incident, that is being politicised, still be relevant in years to come or will it just be a side note about deportations of rejected asylum seekers? pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Jake, we routinely keep articles on crimes and riots that get this kind of coverage. Articles on topics like Germany deportation policy can usefully link to this and similar articles on notable specific incidents.  Your point about this riot being "being politicised" is relevant her only to the degree that it has generated coverage in WP:RS, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and when an EVENT generates this sort of media and political brouhaha, the question of how admirable the motives of the editors, columnists, and politicians were does not come up, only the extent and depth of the coverage.  The other points you bring up can be handled by improving the article or discussed on the article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with E.M.Gregory. And I have to correct you,, reference 15 does mention Ellwangen, 16 is only an addition to show that there were complaints against Dobrindt. Maybe I find a better source for it, mentioning Ellwangen. But: Dobrindts statements are clearly and inseparably connected with this case. This incident will be remembered as one that created an own debate and lifted the German general actual political debate about migration on a new level, as you can see these days in the Bundestag and regarding the quarrel inside the German Federal Government.--Greywin (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep following WP:HEYMANN upgrades by User talk:Greywin, and also because WP:RAPID. There has been WP:SIGCOV of this riot, more than enough to warrant keeping.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - the nomination is defective. The nom reads: «While this was picked up internationally (seems all based on the same original Reuters agency report)».  This may have been true when the article was younger, but it is false now.  It is simply not true.  For example, Swiss media continued to cover the event weeks after it took place (see the Basler Zeitung citation).  In fact, the case became so notorious in Germany and elsewhere that the media adopted a nickname for the case and its protagonist: the «Togolese from Ellwangen» (see the Pfalz-Express citation, etc.).  Clearly an important case widely discussed in Germany and around the world. XavierItzm (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Unfortunately, there is enough media coverage of this incident, but it is clearly one of many being hijacked by certain political factions in Germany. I have made some changes to reduce the POV wording, but it is inevitable that some contributors are using it to further a certain agenda. I would repeat what I've said on the NPOV noticeboard - I'm becoming very concerned about the recent nature and number of edits on the topic of incidents involving migrants in Germany. We all know they have a problem, but WP:SYNTH is greatly in evidence, as well as unbalanced editing. Deb (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I'll jump on this keep bandwagon, lots of soruces here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment couldn't agree more with . In addition to my comments on the NPOV noticeboard, we do see media coverage of such cases, however I am also concerned that the "free press" is being chased with two motives: a) over-reporting so they cannot be accused of under-reporting or cover up (which is a common mantra of one side of the political spectrum) and b) gladly over-reporting as means of revenue generator (advertising page impressions) on a topic that will definitely get traffic because of emotions at the time. As such, WP may fall victim of living in a "non-NPOV" world resulting in distorted article creation. This being the case, IMO, other rules and guidelines should get more weight, such as a 10YT and NOTNEWS. I remember the article about the South Kensington traffic accident (resulted in deletion which I cannot seem to find). The event resulted in a WP article basically while police was still on the scene. Of course, this was breaking news across the globe as media outlets literally fell over each other suspecting terror, which was not the case.
 * As for this event, yes it does have a nickname (as does Christopher Chope for his rejection of a certain bill that resulted in a redirect being created (Choping)), but I strongly contend that this all fails any kind of 10YT and falls into the category of WP:NOTNEWS on its own. This event may have a place as a chapter in an article about deportations as part of the so-called migrant crisis. This is largely the context in which this case seems to be disucssed.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a few remarks on that issue: If you are worried that the press is "over-reporting" in Germany: This is clearly not the case. Leftist/liberal media are still wavering when it comes to these crimes. There are many cases like this one if you read the local press closely, which don't make it into nationwide media. You can find riots in asylum shelters, shootings, stabbings, rapes and other sexual crimes all over the country day by day by day in the last two or three years. I live in this country for decades, and never have seen anything like this. To make it crystal clear: I don't deny that there are also enough crimes by Germans. But the rise of certain serious crimes that are connected to the migrant crisis is obvious and there are studies and figures that prove it, the Lower Saxony study among others. The number of sexual crimes has been rising strongly in the last two years, while only 6 percent of them were reported to the police according to another study. Whatever the causes are, there is a notable development, which also strongly affects German politics. See e.g. the statement of Armin Schuster (CDU) in the article, a man who has the insight of the Parliamentary Oversight Panel, Interior committee and several committees of inquiry: "In our constitutional state, there are clear red lines, which are now deliberately exceeded almost daily by asylum seekers." This is no illusion and no racism, this is the statement of a man who knows what he's talking about. And finally: One may find the comparison to a traffic accident a little strange. These are no accidents, these are serious crimes and riots, which justly distress the people.--Greywin (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unbelievably, you have just written an entire paragraph of personal opinion which makes it clear to anyone reading this that you are not editing from a neutral point of view. Do you really not see that comments like "the rise of certain serious crimes that are connected to the migrant crisis is obvious" are not neutral and have no place whatsoever in an encyclopedia, even on a talk page? Deb (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And you do? And Jake does, writing "an entire paragraph of personal opinion". What is unbelievable? That I added neutral sources for what I wrote, what others weren't doing? That I wrote a neutral article? Just because I have an opinion - as everyone - that doesn't mean that I can't write a neutral article. You don't share my opinion, where is your problem - as long as the article is neutral in the end? And that Schusters statement is not "neutral" should be clear to everyone. He is a politician an is paid for making non-neutral statements. ;) But I tell you something: I read much about the issue, local press, regional press, national press, international press. I added some more sources for you, only from today, only one day, only a quick search. Could link hundreds more. ...--Greywin (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable that you don't understand what you are doing wrong in trying to persuade User:Jake Brockman to adopt your personal prejudices and apparently even thinking that this will in some way relieve his concerns about your edits. Deb (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I try to persuade no one, and above I wrote no personal prejudices, but a jugdement on the base of hundreds, if not thousands of WP:RS read. What I think is more remarkable than this, is the content of those sources, but maybe we simply differ there.--Greywin (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2018 (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.