Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Khaled Idris Bahray


 * 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 herein is for article retention. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Khaled Idris Bahray

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A tragic loss of life no matter who the culprit is, but still, the only reason the murder gained press attention was social media and advocacy group speculation linking it to Pegida. At the moment, the man who admitted to the crime is a fellow Eritrean, but it is still WP:TOOSOON to assert that this murder will be remembered in 5, 10, 20 years if the courts find this man guilty - the killing of one person by somebody they knew is generally not notable. It may be appropriate to summarise the episode in the PEGIDA article, but of course to state who the eventual culprit is if it is not a PEGIDA member - avoiding doing so could bring libel charges as obviously, murder is gravely serious &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This case is remarkable, because:
 * the general xenophobic situation in Dresden
 * the sloppy investigations of police (just started 30 hour after the murder) in a case with an refugee involved
 * the conditions of refugee housing in Dresden
 * the reaction of public on the murder (criminal charges of obstruction of justice, demonstrations, candlelight vigils, ...)

This article was discussed a lot in the german WP and finally remains. --Schwijker (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's undeniable that there is a xenophobic atmosphere in Dresden, and that may be a topic for an article in itself, but for how much it is xenophobic, that looks like it wasn't a motive for this murder. But of course, I opened this discussion to hear the views of other people. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * in the meantime there was a huge media coverage, also international, and lots of demonstrations.Alice d25 (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * and, tAD, yout text above is totally not up to date. Alice d25 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In German article we had the same demand for deletion. Relevance comes not from the incident itself, but the "instrumentalization" by organizations and the press to put fingers in a xenophobia problem of PEGIDA what needs evidence, because its not clear. And the fact is, that all these actions are based on wrong facts. The deletion was rejected because of the need for documentation of this instrumentalization - as a political scandal. So it may be only relevant in Germany. But the lesson for all is: Criticism of political opponents should not be based on lies. Probably you have also better known examples for this :-) --Brainswiffer (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This description brainswiffer gives is wrong. It might show his personal interests. Despite the "wrong" assumptions (and there are a lot of reasons for these assumptions, see ) of a rascist background of the murder, the above facts given by Schwijker were the reasons for keeping in the german WP. As the discussion of the page shows, there are also very few sources, that show an instrumentalization of the case (which in my pov means accusing PEGIDA protesters). After the discussion cooled down, the keeping of the article showed the opportunity of Wikipedia to give a clarifying and neutral perspective on that topic.-- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 11:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But there is no (NO) connection between this single case of murdering (free from any racism) and any other cases of racism inclusive instrumentaisation of this case (Because of the last we will keep it in German WP as a demand for no lies). --Brainswiffer (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you like to look for yourself, see the decision description at the end of de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/15._Januar_2015 (post from 01:41, 23. Jan. 2015 (CET)) -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 14:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great :-) I also am for Keep - because the decision in German for Keeping: "daß der Fall als Paradebeispiel für ein reflexhaftes Vorgehen und Vorverurteilung zeitüberdauernd rezipiert wird" translated: because this case is a prime example for a reflexive approach and a prejudgement (f.e. of PEGIDA) - a time-enduring reflection. --Brainswiffer (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said: it's your personal interest or better POV: on the german article page, nearly no source show the direct accusation of Pegida. Instead most of the sources talk about a xenophobic atmosphere. The Pegida demonstrators do cherry-picking of the media to find something against themselves, they want to feel accused, although the main German media reaction looks diverse and different. (It might be different in the international media. Take care about that when working on the article). I vote instead to have a look at the FAZ report about how the culprit used the situation in Dresden and influenced the media itself. Translation help can be given. (Brainswiffer has earned monthly AIVs in German WP in 2014. As he has rarely been blocked and not in 2014, this only shows that he works in a controversial way, keep that in mind.) --Amtiss, SNAFU ? 16:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * how would it be possible to keep a lie? You try to show it. Your mask is not very camouflaged :-) in German WP you have no chance for your view. Hope also here. But the message is: there is no connection between this case and any racist speculations. The murder itself tried to put it in this direction. Look for other examples for your POV. --Brainswiffer (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep - a subject that is "notable in Germany" is also notable for a Wikipedia article. An AfD discussion should npot be open just to get feedbakc on an article. Bring that up on the talk page.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: the crime has had significant impact as witnessed by the extensive coverage, both domestically in Germany and internationally. Vrac (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 04:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep, when 3 things are more clear in article (like in german article now):
 * There is NO relation between this single case and ANY evidence for racist/xenophobic activities in Dresden/at PEGIDA/in Germany.
 * This may exist, but unfortunately there was a political "instrumentalization" of this single case before it was known who really killed him
 * His murder is a flatmate, also from Eritrea (arrested, DNS, confession). Unfortunately he also carried the speculations about the xenophobic background actively.
 * Keeping here like in German WP) would be an example that the truth can overtake any political instrumentalisation --Brainswiffer (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources indicate notability. Please don't waste time by nominating articles on notable subjects. Everyking (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2015 (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.