From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) TheSandDoctor ( talk) 23:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

2016 Magnanville stabbing

2016 Magnanville stabbing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies, so I shall be as full as possible in laying out all of them. This is for an actual discussion about notability.

  • This incident was given an article following a stabbing incident. WP:RAPID applies to state that this individual is not meeting of notability.
  • One major issue is the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in parts of the Similar attacks. Who determined the significance of this self-constructed notability other than the article creator?
  • The subject also fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advises writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable. The article is mainly WP:COMMENTARY of the event and the individual themselves. This does not demonstrate wider notability of the incident or the subject.
  • No such impact is found in the WP:ROUTINE news cycle this incident received, please refer to WP:NOTNEWS. Consider WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of the individual it is limited and brief, there are two reactions which are little more than the usual expected comments. Going down the list at WP:NOTE, the subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage.
  • I am now going to quote from WP:RSBREAKING: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS". The majority, if not all, of the coverage for this incident was from breaking news, creating a clear lack of reliable secondary sources. Sport and politics ( talk) 18:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • User:Sport and politics, Can you please explain why you have put Template:Not a ballot atop this and a series of terrorism-related AfDs tha tyou created yesterday? This is a highly irregular thing to do; this template is usually added only after IPs and SPA's show up. After canvassing starts. Or after someone spots an AfD on social media. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Well-sourced article on terrorist stabbing attack passes WP:NCRIME. Soruces include several books, althogh this was a 2016 crime, gBooks search : [1]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 02:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ( talk) 02:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Several book mentions. Continuing (in 2017) news coverage. Maybe it was the child, maybe the facebook live streaming (e.g. Shooting of Philando Castile), or maybe just the ISIS activity targeting people in their home. For whatever reason - this clearly passes notability even after a cursory BEFORE. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, not just notable, very notable - Dedicated coverage exclusively to this case continue a year later. [1] The victims, who were national police, were posthumously issued the Légion d'honneur, [2] which is the French equivalent of the Medal of Honor (military) and the Presidential Medal of Freedom (civilian) in the U.S.: the highest national award anyone can get. If this tragic terror attack does not meet notability, I don't know what does. XavierItzm ( talk) 09:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above and due to the fact that this is WP:POV and WP:Point and this user has consistently tried to push an agenda of eliminating coverage of terrorism. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:38, 7 September 2017 (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.
  1. ^ Marie Zinck; Sophie Parmentier (13 June 2017). "Policemen killed in Magnanville: one year already". France Inter (in French). Retrieved 4 September 2017.
  2. ^ http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/magnanville-une-legion-d-honneur-posthume-pour-le-couple-de-policiers_1819011.html
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2016_Magnanville_stabbing&oldid=1137519786"