Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabine Hilschenz


 * 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   delete. No compelling evidence has been provided for why WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to this individual. Several editors refer to WP:CRIME, but don't provide satisfactory evidence for how this person might pass those criteria. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 13:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sabine Hilschenz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS ÷seresin 00:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. This truly is one event, and one could wish this woman and her family had privacy. However, the case made a big splash internationally. In addition to The Guardian and the BBC, cited in the article, there is of course Stern (cited in a list of serial killers that is the only mention of her on German Wikipedia); also Der Spiegel (English), and among other international coverage, El Mundo, The New York Times, and the Associated Press (here on Fox News). The sentence was appealed and confirmed, producing further news coverage: Deutsche Welle (in English), Associated Press (here on NBC News). And in 2009 The Daily Telegraph referred back to the case in covering another case. So the story remained in the public eye for years. With regret, I believe that makes it pass GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. A first look at the article definitely gives the impression of one event and not necessary of an article. The article doesn't mention possible long term consequences mentioned above, and I honestly didn't find any beyond that one NYT article. Looking at the three criteria in WP:BLP1E, the subject does not receive coverage outside of this event, remains a low-profile individual, and the significance of the event has not been well substantiated. Scarlettail (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing seems to have been said about her other than what she did to her children. No way to write a proper biography. WP:NOTNEWS. —Kusma (t·c) 08:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see her not failing WP:CRIME. However the article needs to be expanded and sourced. Pronto.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:ONEVENT. take away the crime and she gets no coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Take away a film stars films and there is no coverage, take away a politicians political work and there is no coverage. No reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks you've just reinforced my delete vote. WP:NACTOR and WP:POLITICIAN have clear criteria for those professions. This person is only known for one thing. and thus fails WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete but weak delete, as per WP:BLP1E, but clearly there was much coverage, internationally even, for this one event, or was it eight.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to meet WP:CRIME criteria as the crimes and its extent were unusual likely resulting in historic significance. -- Pink Bull  18:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. and Scarlettail as WP:BLP1E. --Bejnar (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Yngvadottir. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 06:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Using the WP:CRIME ruberic, the victims aren't of international renown (except in the cause of being the victims). There's no listing of a motive for the crime in the article nor is there continuing coverage about the crime, so the second prong of the CRIME test for perpetrators fails. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2014 (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.