Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths of Tala and Rotana Farea

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of Tala and Rotana Farea[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This event received significant coverage when it occurred two weeks ago but has received almost no additional coverage in the last week, indicating it is a routine news event with fading significance. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Chetsford (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID and revisit in a year. Noting that coverage has been INDEPTH; national and international; and far from routine crime reporting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also per WP:RAPID. And indepth coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nom Just a quick note. First, I did a count and, if one is just doing a search on Google News and seeing a lot of hits, it should be noted that 94% of these are the same syndicated AP story. In fact, even several of the sources in the article itself are just the same AP story published on different sites. Second, 89% of all coverage occurred over a two day period (November 10-11). Third, there has been no further coverage of this news event since November 13. Chetsford (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the geographic extent and depth of the reported - non wire service - stories has been far beyond ROUTINENewsweek: Saudi Arabia Denies Involvement in Mysterious Death of Sisters in New York; CNN: [1]; Washington Post: [2], & [3], & [4]; New York Times: [5], [[Neew York Post]: [6]; [[New York Times]: [7], just to cite a few of the reported storues. and, yes, there were AP stories that got echoed widely. But the reported stories (The Guardian: [8],) ran in so many major outlets that this does meet the WP:NCRIME indicators WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE, WP:GEOSCOPE (The Telegraph: [9], Al Jazeera: [10],) and many more reported stories in major media. That said, I am quite willing to revisit this in a year. But I continue to think we should Keep not only because WP:RAPID, but because it arguably meets WP:CRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seems reasonable, I'll buy that. Changing !vote to Keep and withdrawing nom. Chetsford (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2018 (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.