Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Brighton siege

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) 23:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Brighton siege

(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 the news reports of a man killing one person and holding a prostitute hostage. WP:RAPID applies to state that this trial and verdict is not meeting of notability.

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 little more, simply saying police said it was being treated as terrorism, does not make it notable. 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, if any at all. The subject fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage. Sport and politics (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, please don't add canvassing templates to AfDs where canvassing is not occurring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-sourced article meets WP:NCRIME. (Also note fact that perp was also involved in the 2009 Holsworthy Barracks terror plot makes it especially likely to garner ongoing attention.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCRIME. In-detph coverage continues through late August on various angles - [1] [2].Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as enough coverage exists for the article. Greenbörg (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well written and referenced article that meets WP:NCRIME. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable terrorist incident in Australia - many other Australian terrorism incidents articles on Wikipedia. Of note is that Australian Commonwealth government and all States/Terrorities commenced a gun amnesty throughout Australia following this incident from the use of the shotgun. In which people can surrender any unlicensed firearm. Last amnesty was in 1996. Not added to article yet. Offender also did terror de-radicalisation program - will be debate if these programs are effective. Not added to article yet.--Melbguy05 (talk) 06:30, 6 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 04:39, 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.