Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flensburg stabbing incident


 * 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 no consensus. A few more months will probably allow enough time to see if the coverage is enduring or not. Right now there i no clear consensus Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Flensburg stabbing incident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An event which seems to have only routine coverage from the day, and day after, it occurred and nothing substantial since. Doesn't appear to meet WP:EVENT. PROD was removed by page creator. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - sad, but unfortunately common news event. Lacks coverage adequate for inclusion in Wikipedia.   red dogsix (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: unfortunate, but unless it's a catalyst for something else occurring (at which point we can always re-create this article, and with more and better sourcing), I think this is WP:RECENTISM as well. &mdash; Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 15:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 17:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 17:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Oh, what a time for Wikipedia when every stabbing by a non-white "needs" to clarify that The incident is not considered terrorism. Definitely a symptom of recentism, but the more pressing issue is NOTNEWS, which is evident by the wire-tap stories we see for a brief while after the incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - the nomination is defective - The nomination says «only routine coverage from the day, and day after, it occurred and nothing substantial since». This is false.  For example, on 7 June, i.e., 9 days after attack, the Flensburger Tageblatt published a lenghty report (2,035 words, i.e., 5.6 typewritten pages, single space) critizing earlier media versions for inaccuracies —blaming Bild, for example, and reporting on security aboard ICE trains, particularly after the rash of recent knife attacks aboard, which they listed.   These sorts of reports continue as the investigation progresses.   Besides, this attack has received international coverage (see sources), so it meets WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:EVENT.  XavierItzm (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. At this point, it's just a routine crime, with no lasting significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep for now according to sources the case has been commented by Horst Seehofer, the interior minister of Germany. As such the case has achieved attention at the highest political levels in Germany. If the case turns out to have no long-term notability, it can always be deleted later. AadaamS (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Deutsche Welle puts the event in the 'Deutschland' category which makes it national news. AadaamS (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The event was reported in Austria.
 * so clearly WP:SIGCOV has been established, but notability over time is not yet established. AadaamS (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Wide media coverage, high level political reception, this is more than enough to keep the article. Above that, it is an unique case: Police officers in German trains or stations are not attacked with knifes too often (ok Hanover stabbing, but the motive in this case remains to be clarified). And XavierItzm is fully right in pointing out more specifics of this case.--Greywin (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This has, it's true, received a good deal of coverage in Germany, but, as in other countries, much of this is hysterical media reporting capitalizing on internal racial hatred. I think we need to be exceedingly careful how we cover such incidents. See also Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Deb (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional comment After reading the references, it became clear that the wording of the article seriously misrepresents the official account of what happened, saying that the police officer was stabbed first, rather than intervening in a fight between two men, which seems to be the actual course of events. Deb (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that User:Deb was mistaken here, apparently misled by breaking news reports and perhaps by reading only English-language media reports. I have updated article from later reports confirming that the policewoman was attacked with a knife by the Eritrean migrant as she moved to the exit, that a man came to her defense, attacking the perpetrator and enabling her to pull her gun and shoot the perp.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I read as many of the German reports as I could access, as well as the English-language ones. Thanks for adding a reference that doesn't conflict with the content of the article. It appears there were no independent witnesses so I guess it's not surprising that the course of events is still not entirely clear. Deb (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Deb added inaccurate/outdated information to the article,. When I corrected the misinformation she carried the argument to my talk page , and continues here to make what feels like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added an eyewitness report confirming the order of the attack: 1.) Migrant attacks uniformed policewoman with knife as she heads to exit door; 2. good Samartian attacks perp enabling officer to reach for her gun; 3. policewoman shoots perp.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My, you're very sensitive, aren't you? All this just because I asked you to add a proper reference rather than reverting without explanation. Deb (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please check the timeline, I was not responding to your demand). I had checked the false information that you inserted, and was making a series of corrective edits, which included a validating source (3rd in string) completed before  you pinged me - although you did move awfully fast.  I then added 2 more sources and a couple of edits updating/correcting  inaccurate  information from early reports.  There really is no point in making false accusations like this  when edits are time stamped.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite. I suppose you are aware that when you revert someone - as opposed to just editing the article in a constructive manner - the person you revert gets an immediate warning? Deb (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It's not snowing yet; numerically opinions are split.
 * For avoidance of doubt: not only «received a good deal of coverage in Germany», but also covered in the U.S.A., the U.K., Austria, etc. User Deb does not imply the contrary, but I felt a clarification was needed to avoid misunderstandings.  Thank you. XavierItzm (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:RAPID.Lets wait and see how it develops--Shrike (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:RAPID; and per international coverage. Noting that attacks by migrants in Europe do attract widespread coverage, that we go by extent of coverage - not by our opinon of what gets covered, and that we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable incident which Im sure the far right parties will seize upon. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 01:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep-- A P S  talk  21:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Has significant coverage, and with the commentary by high-level German politicians it qualifies for WP:EVENT. PohranicniStraze (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * weak delete I'm not sure if "significant coverage" is the same as "news coverage". Politicians commented on it which may count a little. It is difficult to tell if this belongs since it was created so soon after the crime so I only weakly support deletion.Nobody&#39;s Keeper (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RAPID. International news coverage. As for whether this will be continuing or have a lasting impact we need a WP:BALL.Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. At this point, it's just a routine crime, with no lasting significance. We also need a WP:BALL at this point to think the incident will have any lasting significance. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant coverage. Per good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet WP:NCRIME & per WP:RAPID. The coverage is routine crime blotter; no apparently lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NCRIME actually reads: «As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act» Because of the extensive coverage, WP:NCRIME does not apply.XavierItzm (talk) 05:44, 23 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.