Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kundby case


 * 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Kundby case

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One person imprisoned for a failed terrorist plot. The two Danish sources are both from May 2017. No indication that this event has the "lasting, historical significance" required for notability satisfying WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Pam D  22:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added more news sources now. Two sources from 2017 isn't bad for a news story that started in 2015.--Rævhuld (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Well, I bet that User:PamD isn't from Denmark. This case has been discussed very broadly in all Danish major newspapers since January 2016. The sentence she got is a milestone in Danish law decision. This case will have a major effect on future judgement regarding terrorist attacks. It started a big debate in Denmark about islam and refugees, being part of the arguments to close the border to Germany. It was one of Denmark's biggest terrorist cases, with a large influence of the future of Denmark. So of course it is important. --Rævhuld (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This case had a large influence on law enforcement, politics (refugee crisis and islam) and anti terror laws in Denmark. So of course it was an important case.--Rævhuld (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And may I mention, that User:PamDs claim there wasn't an article about this case in the Danish Wikipedia isn't true?--Rævhuld (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Large national terrorist plots with a long-stay in mass media has always gotten an article here on Wikipedia. Some great examples on this are: 2017 Berlin terrorism plot, 2016 Balkans terrorism plot and 2017 Berlin terrorist plot to mention only two of many similar articles.--Rævhuld (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Events are probably notable if they have [...] a significant lasting effect" in WP:EVENTCRIT. Well, influence on refugee politics, law and anti terror acts is a significant lasting effect.--Rævhuld (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)" in WP:EVENTCRIT. Well, you mean like coverage in all Danish newspapers in nearly two years? With a lot of analyzes and a lot of re-analyzes? Check, check and check! I have already linked some of the sources up here.--Rævhuld (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per failure to meet WP:LASTING and other criteria on WP:EVENT. Though a quick google search, I could find no national news sources in the U.S. that have even addressed this event. Sure, it may be different in Denmark but there are many similar incidents that have had coverage by English-speaking sources like the 2016 Balkans terrorism plot so that's not enough to say it's worth an article of its own. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read the links you have linked to. We do not discriminate against nations here. Just because a US media does or does not cover a case, doesn't mean it is or isn't relevant. "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted" WP:DIVERSE. According to Wikipedia notability guidelines, a national coverage is enough to be notable. Not to mention that it HAS been covered by international media!             I have added international newspapers. From the UK, Sweden and Germany. So either Wikipedia is for America only or we agree on the USA not being the centre of the universe.--Rævhuld (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Here some notability criteria this case has:
 * "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable" ... like major changes in politics, law and counter terrorism. WP:LASTING
 * "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." ... coverage since January 2016, the last article was published today. And there will soon come more articles about this event, since the case has re-opened. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
 * "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable" ... every Danish newspaper wrote about it since January 2016. With a lot of analysis of lawyers, psychologists and doctors. WP:INDEPTH
 * "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted" ... well, we got that. [[WP:DIVERSE}}
 * So what do we learn? It is notable.--Rævhuld (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * @Rævhuld I have read the links that I mentioned. The Daily Mail and RT are not WP:RS and I'm not arguing that it did not get substantial coverage in Denmark but WP:GEOSCOPE states "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article" so that can't be the only reason for creating an article. Furthermore, you nominated the 2017 Portland train attack for deletion despite it getting far more coverage than this, so we can't have a double standard when it comes to what is notable and what is not. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, your train attack DIDN'T get more coverage! It ONLY got more coverage in the USA! Not to mention that your train attack wasn't terrorism - this case is about terrorism and so more important. A lot of your news (even those you write articles about here on Wikipedia) are ONLY published in the USA. And you are not the centre of the universe, by the way. So either we make Wikipedia for America only, Donald Trumpish, or we follow the notability guidelines. And as you clearly can read: national coverage is enough. There is no rule there, claiming the entire event has to be heavily covered in US media to be relevant. Wikipedia is for all of us, not only for Americans. Wikipedia is meant to be for all of us! Coverage in national or international newspapers aren't the only things to look for. Lasting effect is another point. And you are right, it doesn't have a lasting effect on America, so therefore it is irrelevant ... for you.--Rævhuld (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Rævhuld: Please watch your WP:TONE, this is supposed to be a formal conversation. First, the train attack did not get only get coverage in the United States. The Guardian and The Independent are both British publications that reported on it. Al Jazeera is a Qatari source that reported on it. Second, it doesn't matter whether an event was terrorism or not since terrorism is not some magic label that automatically makes something notable. There have been over 125,000 terrorist incidents since 1970 and they all don't get their own articles. This wasn't even an attack, it was just a plot. Furthermore, "terrorism" is a notoriously ambiguous word since events with blatant political motivations such as the Charleston church shooting and Quebec City mosque shooting are never labelled terrorism. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note to Kamal, Rævhuld, national coverage is sufficient to pass WP:GEOSCOPE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @E.M.Gregory: Ok, thank you, I have withdrawn my vote per this and WP:PERSISTENT. I hope that this WP:AfD can be used as a precedent so that other similar but equally notable events can have their own articles. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Good sources that however needs to be expanded. Seems to fall within notability. Noted case in Denmark.BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Case getting international coverage sufficient to support notability, although, of course, the suppression of the perp's name (as per practice in Europe) makes searching more difficult, which may have misled some of the editors commenting on this page. Coverage in Danish and international press needs to be used to expand article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Another article which is 'only' a terrorist plot in Denmark: 2007 bomb plot in Copenhagen. And we didn't deleted that article, right?--Rævhuld (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per E.MGregory; and that the coverage in WP:RS now appears to be both WP:PERSISTENT and of WP:DEPTH, which is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  12:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per my century long friend ; that by default also includes agreement to Mr. Gregory's opinion above. — usernamekiran (talk)  12:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, one of the schools were Jewish. So possibly antisemitism involved.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you do not cease your WP:BADGERing of commenting editors I will be forced to seeek administrative intervention. Please move all your unnecessary comments into their own section and hat them. Many thanks. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't against any editor. I mentioned antisemitism because that might make the article more WP:NOTE.--Rævhuld (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am referring to your yards of unnecessary commentary which is verging on badgering other editors. Please remove or hat all your extraneous remarks. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  15:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell me which comment exactly? I don't know how to hat anything, but if you think I did anything against the WP:TONE feel free to hat it. PS! I haven't attacked any editor. The only thing I said was that an event doesn't have to be in an American newspaper to be notable. Which was an argument by one of the editors.--Rævhuld (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Can I move the article while it is being deleted? There has been a move suggestion.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you help?--Rævhuld (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)'
 * to the best of my knowledge, it can be moved. The redirect that will be left behind will make sure the deletion discussion stay linked. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that it is etiquette to wait until AfD concludes. I have seen AfD discussions invalidated after a page move, and early in my career a terrorism or crime-related article I was editing (I don't recall which, but it was a hotly disputed topic) I was accused of evildoing for making an obvious and uncontroversial move to a new title.  Better wait.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here: Articles for deletion/2012 Paros (Greece) rape is the AfD that dissuaded me from moving articles during AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Consideration of Notability is not confined to notability in the USA. Rathfelder (talk) 16:45, 10 June 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.