Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henryk Siwiak homicide


 * 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. Consensus to keep as well as a withdrawal by the nominator (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 06:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Henryk Siwiak homicide

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is IMHO a very good illustration of an article that fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: not everything covered by the media is notable. Here we have a regular murder case that got coverage solely because it occurred around the time of 7/11 in NYC and so journalists who were looking for material for the event anniversary in September 2011 decided to write about it. Yes, I do see it has received some coverage, but I think this is an example when we leave the realm of encyclopedic subjects and start summarizing news - not a place where Wikipedia should be. Not everything that receives reliable news coverage should is notable. A final note: this event is only notable due to its association with 9/11. If it occurred on any other day, it would be trivial and ignored by journalists. Outside that, it fails WP:PERSISTENCE, and raises issues with WP:SENSATION. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - sourcing is great. Artice is in great shape overall. It seems to have received continued attention over the years. WP:GNG also applies. The nominator might not like this but this nom is an obvious IDONTLIKEIT nom, even the nominator admits that it has received coverage but claims it fails PERSISTENCE. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It probably would have been just a normal, non-notable crime had it happened, say, September 9. However, this article is well sourced from multiple years, and covers an interesting event that is largely overlooked. epicgenius (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, "7/11"? Sounds like a Trump-esque blunder... epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - a sad local event but only a passing trivial news story; it could be mentioned in a footnote of an article as to the event, but not notable for a stand alone article. As is stated, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources cited include international coverage in September 2001, follow up in October of that year, another follow up in January of the next year, and later a narrative of the story written for a crime journal. All of the sources feature the subject of this article. I see multiple writers, in several places, covering the story over a long period of time. This establishes WP:GNG.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject covered by full size articles in the US and in Poland among other places. A serious mater, somewhat similar to the Robert Dziekański Taser incident in Canada as far as death of a new immigrant with English language difficulties is concerned. An unsolved mystery closely tied to world events under WP:GNG mentioned in at least two books, by Verena Lueken (Germany) and Stryker & Parascandola (US).  Poeticbent  talk  13:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as article creator. to everyone else's support. I consider its notability to lie in being the only death officially considered a homicide in New York City on a day when hundreds of people were killed there in the deadliest terrorist attack ever, and the deadliest single mass-casualty. That is a singular, unique attribute of this crime. I have nominated this for DYK, with the specific request that it run on Sunday, the 15th anniversary of 9/11, and it appeared as of last night US East Coast time to have been approved for that. Since we do not run articles on DYK if they are up for deletion, should this AfD last that long we could not run the article on the anniversary when it would arouse the greatest interest (interest which, who knows, might lead to the crime being solved). Piotrus, I accept that you made this nomination in good faith, although I believe, for all the reasons I and the other keep !voters have pointed out, that you have misinterpreted policy in making this nomination. But I do wish you had waited until next week ... if I didn't know and respect you as much as I do for your work here, particularly on Polish topics, I might have considered this nomination to be maliciously motivated and would not have been as polite and formal as I have been in making this !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Daniel - I would not take Piotrus's nom as a personal affront, but given the timing I understand. I would bet he did not know about the DYK. The way the comments are going I don't see why it cannot be closed soon. Kierzek (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, Piotrus may have just made this nomination with good intentions but no knowledge of a DYK nom. (And now I understand why this article has been created just a few days ago.) epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I know him well enough to know he didn't ... while he has made some excellent submissions to DYK, I don't think he keeps close tabs on things there, and that's OK. I just wanted him (and anyone reading, FTM) to be aware that these issues can exist and to check closely before taking potentially drastic action. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nom. This will be most likely closed as keep, since my view does not seem to be shared by the community, and in that case, let's not make any trouble for the anniversary DYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:13, 9 September 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.