Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petra Laszlo tripping 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 keep. Consensus is this is a well covered and notable event. (non-admin closure) J bh  Talk  11:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Petra Laszlo tripping incident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails WP:Notability and also contains several factual errors. Wikipedia is not a political forum of current marginal events. Norden1990 (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This incident, and its aftermath, made the news all over the world, multiple stories on CNN, The New York Times. Please point out the factual errors. The article has multiple and very reliable references.  Here's a few more just from a simple Google search, this incident is more than notable:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/hungarian-camerawoman-suing-migrant-tripped-facebook-article-1.2405057

http://www.watoday.com.au/world/migrant-crisis/hungarian-camerawoman-petra-laszlo-seen-tripping-refugee-in-video-to-sue-victim-20151021-gkf7w6

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tripped-syrian-refugee-starts-spain-football-life-200422722--sow.html

Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk)
 * See WP:NOTNEWS. This is absolutely a marginal, irrelevant event in the European migrant crisis. In addition to factual errors (e.g. the Hungarian journalist's name), the text contains POV and the article itself does not meet the formal and typographic criteria of Wikipedia. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe an international incident that went viral around the world and has gotten multiple articles in The New York Times and not to mention stories in pretty much every major news source around the globe is marginal then I think you may need to respectfully look up the definition. Again, you have not pointed a single factual error (other than the spelling of the journalist's name), the text in the article is all backed up from the news sources linked in citations in the article, the quotes in the article are also taken from reliable news sources, the citations for every quote is listed in the article.  Also, just because you feel a Wikipedia article doesn't meet "typographic criteria of Wikipedia" then the article can simply be tagged so other editors can improve it rather than delete an article about an incident with MANY major notable sources. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * International incident? Where? I can't see it. This is only a short trivia during the European migrant crisis, Wikipedia is Not Newspaper. The case did not generate lasting coverage. I also suggest you should read WP:NPA. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Editors seem to misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS - which states "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". This is not a routine news story. If this had been in the United States no dispute would have existed about this article. Kim Davis (county clerk), who refused to a marriage licence to same-sex couples has received significant Wikipedia coverage and a deletion nom about her resulted in Snow keep. This article needs improvement but that is never grounds for deletion AusLondonder (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not care Kim Davis. This discussion is about an unrelevant event. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete if it's important it should go in the subject's BLP. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At the moment, the subject does not have a BLP. It is unquestionably important and received massive media coverage and also commentary globally. AusLondonder (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment See, I don't think she should have a BLP, per WP:NOTNEWS "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be." I can certainly understand how some people feel this is not an "enduringly notable event." And yet in the massive torrent of suffering this one stupid relatively minor act of hers seems to have captured the attention of the world. No idea how I'd !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a well sourced and notable event, with additional coverage continuing in the aftermath. HuffPo, Washington Times, Guardian, CBCnews (clearly a global phenomenon) have follow up articles in the last couple of weeks.  Scr ★ pIron IV 22:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes... news that a certain unimportant Muslim man earned a marginal job at a Spanish football club. Very important info for the English-language Wikipedia lexicon... It is enough to mention this incident in two sentences at the European migrant crisis article. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that everyone is equally unimportant/important in this incident. It's not about who he was, or the quality of the job he got. The argument to keep isn't based on those factors, surely. Oh and comments like "unimportant Muslim man" isn't going to convince people still on the fence, like me, that this nomination isn't fuelled by reasons other than Wikipedia policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See Good faith. This Muslim person, Your or me are "unimportant" persons. Anyway, I don't care your presumption, I just follow the Wiki rules. I suggest, you should read Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point, I don't see how WP:SOAP even apples. You may argue that it's not lastingly notable, but it's not an example of soapboxing: it's written neutrally and doesn't fix any of the criteria for SOAP, from what I can see. I'm not seeing a coherent argument here. Change to keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 *  Keep good sourcing, aftermath has also been covered. etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At the risk being cynical, Norden1990 is actually from Budapest, Hungary, or so their Wikipedia user page says. This incident happened in Budapest, Hungary.  Perhaps Norden1990 has have some sort of personal agenda or bias because this incident reflects badly on the city and country they are from?  Perhaps not, but just thought I'd mention it. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please avoid personal attack and anti-Hungarian sentiment. Anyway this incident happened in Röszke at the Hungarian-Serbian border. Another factual error, I'm just sayin'. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are wrong, however, this incident received significant media attention including commentary globally. I cannot see a single ground for deletion. Hungary is certainly developing a reputation for increasing anti-immigrant sentiment and intolerance. AusLondonder (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it your POV pushing? The Guardian is not a source for that, especially after several "refugee" camps and flats set on fire in the preceding weeks and months in Germany. The Wikipedia should contain facts and it is not the place for your biased and anti-Hungarian opinions. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The incident has indeed received significant media attention. I've cleaned up the rest of the article's references and removed some, it looks more presentable now, albeit imperfect.  Let's wrap this discussion up, shall we?  Unless anyone else wants to chime in. Neptune&#39;s Trident (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: This was an important event in the refugee crisis and one of the most significant in terms of coverage. I don't think the lede appropriately summarises the article/incident though, and could do with re-writing by someone able to do so without too much repetition.
 * I think this is a typical "fifteen minutes of fame" event that was way blown out of proportion. It should be mentioned in the article on the migrant crisis, or in an article about anti-migrant sentiments in Europe, but it's not significant enough for its own article. Also, I wouldn't like to see Wikipedia joining the global cyberbullying campaign this woman has been exposed to. – Alensha   talk  17:58, 24 November 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.