Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villejuif stabbing

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 no consensus. Perhaps renominate in a year or so, to better evaluate this event's lasting importance. Sandstein 15:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Villejuif stabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS This story rated three column inches in today's Guardian, and I verymuch doubt that it will have any lasting significance. TheLongTone (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the attack has been covered in-depth in France, Germany and the UK thus amounting to WP:SIGCOV Since there is a suspected ideological motive, the attack will likely analyzed by Europol and included in their reports. Most similar attacks easily pass WP:SIGCOV. A Thousand Words (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The secretary of state has commented upon the attack. It is therefore at the national level of French government, not a neighbourhood crime. A Thousand Words (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is just a random stabbing without any motive like many others, you can delete it. But I think that we have to wait the investigation. If this is stabbing is terror-related, with a religious or a political background, the article is necessary. User:Gianluigi02

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 15:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 15:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is an example of why we have WP:NOTNEWS, also trying to predict what may or may not happen falls under WP:CRYSTAL. I do not see coverage in this article that meets WP:DEPTH other than routine reporting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CRYSTAL applies to article content, not discussions. A Thousand Words (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Where does it say that? It mentions a passage in regards to articles, but also states "It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." We also have WP:ATA#CRYSTAL in arguments to avoid for deletion discussions regarding predictions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is enough coverage in enough countries to fit the notability criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but are they parroting the same narrative? This isn't called extensive coverage if one news source is saying the exact same thing as another news source. You also have to keep in mind that groups of news organizations are owned by the same parent company. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coverage is extensive & thorough enough considering how recently this happened. You'll need to show evidence of your suggestion about media companies with the same owner repeating the same things in order to demonstrate that. Jim Michael (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - At the end of the day France is now investigating it as an act of terror. It also involves a death so this is a big terror case. So I think it's an easy answer as "yes, we should keep" - 11S117 (talk) 3:13 , 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, as another example of WP:NOTNEWS, when did this attack/police response occur? 3 January, and when was this article created? 3 January, how can it/its impact possibly be significant/long lasting? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many of our articles about attacks were created on the day they occurred. Are you saying that we should always wait at least a fixed minimum number of days or weeks after an attack before creating an article about it? Jim Michael (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i don't understand that some wikieditors have this apparent obsession with reporting on certain events, like this attack, so soon after they occur, and before their long term affects have been ascertained, as if Wikipedia is a news service, it is not, for that there is Wikinews. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's significant evidence that this murder, which took place in public, against strangers, & had an apparent Islamist motive, will have long-term significance & notability. Jim Michael (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't, and your statement amounts to WP:CRYSTAL balling. The facts are leading this to not be an Islamic motive, and there is no in depth coverage of the attack other than WP:ROUTINE news reporting. Have there been any significant impacts? How does this pass WP:LASTING? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's in the news in a lot of countries, so it's notable. And it's being investigated as a terrorist attack. I agree with Jim Michael.Lukasvdb99 (talk) 15:27 , 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:RAPID. The case is still developing, there's no reason to rush to delete right now. The widespread international coverage seems to prove notability. Surachit (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes but there is also WP:DELAY which states "It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Writing about breaking news may be recentism, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable." ......... There is already crystal balling going on regarding if this event is going to be a terrorist attack or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a notable event, much coverage in France and internationally. Tiphareth (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A big terror event???? One person dead. Hardly in the same class as, say, the Bataclan incident. Significant coverage? Yes it made the news. As I said, it rated three column inches in The Guardian. I would advise all those saying 'keep' to actually read WP:NOTNEWS. At most this merits a line in another page.TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's saying that this was a big event. However, we don't have a minimum death toll requirement for crime articles - many of our articles about crimes had 1 or 0 fatalities. The coverage is in the mainstream media of several countries. Jim Michael (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:NOTNEWS.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

enWP is in no way beholden to the publication habits of The Guardian. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the Guardian as an (I believe) typical example of the coverage this insignificant event received. And since the initial article, there has been no more coverage. Coverage needs to be both significant and ongoing This fails both criteria..TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that. The mainstream media mentioned this attack again during their coverage of the similar attacks which took place soon after in Metz & Gelsenkirchen. Jim Michael (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A mention on the back of another story is, to say the least, unconvincing. Read WP:NOTNEWS again, please.TheLongTone (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions by several mainstream media orgs in relation to 2 other stabbings. There's also the arrest & investigation of the attacker's partner. What more would you expect in relation to a random attack on strangers in which the attacker was killed at the scene? Jim Michael (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It still does not pass our notability standards. The event had a splash in the news and everyone moved onto other things, you cant make connections to other things without the reliable sourcing to back the claim up. If this is indeed linked to terrorism and other events then it should be merged into Terrorism in France as a long running larger issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The attacker's alleged links to Islamist terrorism/extremism are still being investigated. The media coverage is continuing with his partner's arrest. The fact that world events of greater importance - especially those in Iran & Iraq - are taking far more media coverage, doesn't mean this isn't a notable attack. Jim Michael (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing? There has not been any media coverage about the subject in at least 3 days [1]. If these notable investigations were ongoing then we would see in depth lasting coverage about that aspect, but there is none. I'm sorry but this is why we have WP:LASTING, and why things that are part of a larger notable event are mentioned in those articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been more recent coverage, including ref 17, in the Investigation section of the article. That Le Parisien article was published yesterday & updated today. Jim Michael (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.