Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Hamburg stabbing attack (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. Overall consensus is for article retention. North America1000 10:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

2018 Hamburg stabbing attack
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another article in the German Refugee Crime walled garden. It doesn't meet WP:SUSTAINED guidelines for WP:NOTNEWS and per WP:EVENTCRIT does not appear to have had any lasting effect. While any example of misogynistic domestic violence is terrible it is also sadly common, and selecting this one for encyclopedic treatment because the victim was a white woman while the suspected assailant was not is not something Wikipedia should be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is much easier to assess than the partner article currently nominated for deletion. Stabbings are, sadly, common throughout Europe and America and rarely merit a mention in the encyclopedia. The efforts to liken this crime to others committed in Germany recently by immigrants simply serve to illustrate how commonplace the particular incident is. The fact that there is no corresponding article in German wikipedia underlines this. Deb (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * page may simply need improvement, interesting details, links available here .E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's telling that you would propose this group of radical right-wing extremists as a source of notability here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not make stuff up. I stated, plainly, that links on that page are useful.  It links to multiple newspapers, which are reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clear consensus to keep on 21 April 2018 due to very wide international coverage around the time of the event (which was gruesome - the beheading or near beheading of a baby and killing the mother as well in a crowded subway station). There has been continued international coverage due to claims of German censorship, which seem to be false. There is also continuing German national level coverage - - thus we meet WP:NCRIME due to sustained national(+) level coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I will also note that there is no evidence presented for the assertion that per nom this was "selecting this one for encyclopedic treatment because the victim was a white woman while the suspected assailant was not is not something Wikipedia should be doing" - which seems to be an assertion regarding the motivations of the editors involved in the article to date.Icewhiz (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's fairly clear that the article creator has a political agenda - he has been quite open about it in the past. But, leaving that aside, no one seems able to explain why editors on German wikipedia have not felt strongly enough to create an article in their own language on this supposedly important topic. Deb (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Lots of significant topics are missing in German, and in English. See: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Note that ad hominem attacks on fellow editors are not a valid argument for deletion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Notability criteria vary across different wikis. The German wiki in particular is considered by many to deletionist in orientation, making cross-wiki comparison difficult. Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, Icewhiz, but I don't see any evidence that anyone has tried to create an article on this topic and been prevented from doing so. Deb (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Experienced editors generally avoid creating articles on subjects that may be deleted. In my own cross-wiki editing experience I've run across situations in which articles clearly passed a SNG on one wiki and did not in another. Regardless - cross-wiki arguments are usually fairly weak (this goes both ways - also for "keep, this exists in wiki X") - the exceptions being a superbly sourced article on another wiki (the sources establishing notability - not the article) or a situation in which there are many-many cross wiki links (with caveats here as well - e.g. Articles for deletion/Eliad Bar was present on some 5 wikis - created by the same user - possibly to strengthen notability)). Icewhiz (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What's ad hominem? You linked a web page from a group noted for being deeply anti-islamic and very lose with the truth as a source to establish the notability of an article that was created as a WP:COATRACK for the article creator's political views on immigration, with an example of that belief cited above by . Had you not shared that deeply offensive link I would not have commented on it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Deb's assertion that "article creator has a political agenda" is ad hominem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that Nom just deleted sourced material about suspect's life from article. And that Nom and User:Deb (strike E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)) deleted large swaths of texts and sources before starting the AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This October 6 version:, before the massive edits to article began, presents many facts and sources that were deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I deleted irrelevant details about the demographics of the suspect that only matter if you subscribe to the position that the national origin of the criminal is in any way relevant or notable to any non-hate-crime. Which I don't. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:E.M.Gregory, kindly don't accuse me of things I didn't do. I deleted one short paragraph purporting to deal with "similar" crimes which actually were only considered similar by one source - this is POV editing. When the paragraph was repeatedly replaced, I reworded it to put it into context. At no point did I delete a large swathe of text, nor did I delete any sources. Deb (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * An entire section - 13:54, 6 November 2018 - which seems well sourced - was deleted on the spurious claim that the suspect (or technically more accurate - the accused) was called a perpetrator. It is not clear that sources do not treat the accused, who confessed, as a perpatrator - bild seem to be calling him a "Messer-Killer" (knife killer) in their own voice - but regardless - the alleged BLPCRIME concern could've been dealt with a simple replacement of the word - rather than section blanking. We generally do not delete large swathes of an article concurrent to AfD unless there are urgent policy reasons to do so (i.e. clear and glaring BLP vios).Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It does seem to me that, once you start speculating on a perpetrator's motives in an article, using the prosecution's words to do so, you are treading on dangerous ground, BLP-wise. In the UK - I don't know about Germany - an accused could claim that they were unable to get a fair trial if there was widespread repeating of such accusations in the media. Deb (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as per recent, well-attended AfD that closed, "Keep." And, as I said at previous AfD,  because worldwide coverage meets WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep event has generated international attention and the trial, which started in October, is also covered in WP:RS sources among which are Der Spiegel. By the amount of both international and nationwide coverage it is a suitable topic for a standalone article due to WP:SIGCOV per the sources recently added. AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment To find sources of this event in german, simply enter Messerangriff am Jungfernstieg into a suitable search enginge. Searching in English only may give the false impression this event has no lasting coverage. AadaamS (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Earlier clear consensus to keep, world-wide and ongoing coverage, it is still in the media.--Greywin (talk) 21:37, 13 November 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.