Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Mollie Tibbetts

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 per WP:SNOW TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Mollie Tibbetts[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)

The creation of this page is a very typical bad judgement; there is news ~~with a hot political element,~~ and boom we have a page. The page is nominally about an event - the ~~murder~~ disappearance of a non-notable (in WP sense) woman; the death has become politicized because it appears that she was murdered and the murder may have been done by an "illegal alien" or "undocumented immigrant", as you will, but is actually all driven by the politicization of the death ahead of the 2018 midterm elections. The family has asked repeatedly for this death not to be politicized. More importantly for us, we are not a newspaper, and not part of the blogosphere. The actual significance of this event will not be known for a long time -- it is WP:TOOSOON to determine if it will be of enduring historical importance or not, and Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. A media circus =/= Notability. The arguments on the talk page are (except for what to call this page) entirely about the unencyclopedic politicized shit around this death, namely what to call the suspect, where exactly he came from, etc etc. Everyone involved in this could use their time better, working to build an encyclopedia with content summarizing accepted knowledge about topics of enduring importance rather than playing out real world politics on a page that should not exist; volunteer time is the lifeblood of this project and it is being squandered here. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I cannot imagine a closer, closing this with any outcome other than keep even if many more slow-moving people would arrive and support this. I remain disappointed that so few editors gave a thought to WP:LASTING; ruckus in talkingheadland is not a lasting effect. So; withdrawing. Per WP:WDAFD I cannot close, as there are !votes supporting the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been trying to keep the political hot-button issues out of the article at talk, rather than seeking deletion, but I think Jytdog is right about this. It'd be better for this page to go away per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: I sympathize with your position. I think it's extremely annoying how many editors have come into the article simply to call out the immigration status of the suspect, whether through inserting the label into random places with no context or by pushing for clearly politically charged terminology. However, deleting the article won't change those people's minds and it's not really a deletion criterion. While many of us might wish we could wish the politics away from this case, it's already far too late for that. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per NCRIME. Redacted to show the intended NCRIME, rather than my typo of just CRIME.(Full disclosure - I am the original author of this article) The inability of editors to keep politics out of the discussion on the talk page - and, as a result, the article - has nothing to do with whether or not the article should remain. While I recognize the wishes of the family, they don't get to dictate what we do on Wikipedia. The article is well written, well sourced, and the case drew widespread attention in the news both before and after her body was found. I see no valid reason for deletion. Strikerforce^Talk 13:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the wishes of the family don't drive what we do. The nomination says "more importantly" and nothing you have written addresses the core rationale -- namely WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. There is no question that there are lots of sources; our content is also not driven by media circuses, and you don't deal with that or the unknown enduring importance of this event. I do understand that some people view WP as a newspaper and part of the blogosphere, and ignore our mission to summarize accepted knowledge about topics of enduring importance. Their !votes should be weighted accordingly. Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out a flaw in your nomination - "there is news with a hot political element, and boom we have a page". I created the page before the suspect was identified. At the time of creation, there was no "political element". I'd ask you to remove that statement from your nomination, please, as it is not accurate, @Jytdog:. Strikerforce^Talk 13:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change that WP:NOTNEWS applies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted; I apologize for my error. Yes there was even less of an argument for notability when this was created. Correcting that has actually strengthened the deletion argument. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you address the standards set by NCRIME? From the guideline, Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred since that would not make the matter less notable. Strikerforce^Talk 14:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:CRIME is about notability of people; what you are quoting is WP:NCRIME, which is about events. The key words there are "meets the above guidelines" See the WP:LASTING section above that. Please keep in mind, that all of the notability essays are attempts to implement WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE part of WP:NOT and remain subject to all the rest of NOT and the rest of the P&G. That is exactly why WP:LASTING is there. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Strikerforce, when you change your comments as you did here, you should redact, per WP:REDACT; just editing as you did, makes subsequent comments absurd. Please go back and show those changes per WP:REDACT. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's take this step by step. 1) Redaction - Too many arguments to address has led me to mix up my comments. CRIME, rather than the original NCRIME. This article is about the crime itself, not the victim. CRIME describes the notability of the victim, as I have stated above, which leads us to 2) LASTING, which states that events - which is what the root of the article is all about, not Mollie Tibbetts, herself - "are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.", which goes on to say' that "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).". To that regard, the 11,000,000+ results on Google mentioned by @GreenMeansGo: below clearly establish the "widely covered in diverse sources" part of the guideline. 3) In my opinion, DEPTH, CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and DIVERSE all apply here. 4) We're now at my previously mentioned NCRIME. Your whole argument seems to rest on the opinion that the subject does not meet LASTING, which is very crystal ball-like of you, wouldn't you say? You're making the argument, as I understand it, that we should base the entire discussion here about whether or not the case will have lasting effect. I don't feel that NOTNEWS applies to this article. Strikerforce^Talk 15:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Redaction Strikerforce^Talk 15:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not gone back and redacted, and you remain confused. NCRIME is about events; CRIME is about the victim. And you are skipping right over WP:LASTING which requires that the significance be known. It is not known. I will not reply further. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly knew what I intended, based on your comments. I will note, however, that I did - in fact - make such a notation. It appears to have been caught in an edit conflict. I have reinserted. To address your statement about LASTING, you clearly are not following the rationale that I laid out immediately prior to this comment. LASTING is not the end all be all of notability. It is a factor to consider, but not necessarily a requirement, given the other parts of the guideline that I laid out for you. Strikerforce^Talk 15:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For emphasis, this article is not about the victim. If that were the case, I would likely agree that she, herself, does not meet notability. The article is about the crime itself. Therefore, NCRIME is the applicable standard and the article meets notability, per my rationale above. Strikerforce^Talk 15:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know, all the bolding is just clutter. The only person citing guidelines about the victim is you. No one thinks this is about the victim. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A comment pointing out how a form of markup showing emphasis of a point is clutter is, in itself, clutter, don't you think? To the premise of your comment, however, I'm citing guidelines about the event, not the victim. You are still trying to use an improper rationale - one that would apply to Mollie Tibbetts, herself, and not the crime - to delete the article. That's the fact that I've been trying to get you to see. Strikerforce^Talk 16:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused about the deletion rationale; there is nothing I can do about that.Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is well sourced, and it is too soon to tell whether or not the case will have enduring importance. If the article can not be kept, it should be redirected to List of people who disappeared mysteriously: post-1970. BTW, should this deletion discussion take place while a move discussion is in progress (albeit, the move discussion has been open for almost one week)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC
Comment No, the presence of the simultaneous move discussion is neither here nor there. If it's found this article should be deleted, then it'd be deleted regardless of the name it is moved to. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TOOSOON is an essay, and the determining factor in whether something is TOOSOON, is whether it is notable. RECENTISM has no bearing on notability. NOTNEWS actually does, but having received sustained coverage for more than a month now, it's difficult to imagine myself convinced by an argument that this is akin to routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities. Whether this is a karmic net negative compared with these editors spending equal time on perhaps expanding the 664 stubs related to the history of the US Supreme Court, may in fact be both true and compelling. But it's not a valid rationale for deletion. If it were we'd have long ago emptied out most or all of Category:Kardashian family and Category:Professional wrestling. GMG ^talk 14:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and the project would be better for emptying out those categories. WP is open and people can do a very wide range of things here. Where WP is great, it is because people do what they should do; the places where it sucks, is where people have done simply what they can. Your !vote does not reflect our mission -- what we should do. "Sustained" is not about time scales on the order or days or even a few weeks, btw - of course this will remain "in the news" until the matter is resolved legally, at least. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't be attempting to discredit the !votes of others. It's bad form. Please stick to policy. Strikerforce^Talk 14:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree it would be a good idea to empty out those two categories; that said, WP:OSE would say it doesn't matter if there are other things on Wikipedia that shouldn't be. We can still remove this thing that shouldn't be here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is well said, and I do not intend to comment on all !votes, just the early ones that bring flawed arguments. After that it would indeed be bludgeoning. I wanted to add that WP:SUSTAINED is an effort to make the notion of "enduring importance" somehow concrete, and we have no indication of that for this event. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What we should do, is provide a resource for free knowledge on any topic that has available sourcing with which to write a well-sourced and neutral encyclopedia article. That's notability in a nutshell. But we don't get to impose a value judgement on what notable topics we should work on first, and then only after Category:Byzantine Empire stubs is emptied will we allow editors to work on Category:New Zealand television stubs. We take what we can get, we let people work where their interests lay, and we're grateful for it. As a crotchety old fart who's spent half of their editing in the postbellum US, I wish it weren't the case, but it is. GMG ^talk 14:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- encyclopedia article are the key words there. WP:SUSTAINED goes to the heart of what it means to be an encyclopedia as opposed to a newspaper or the many other things that WP is not. Per WP:NOT which defines our mission. Doing what we should does involve judgement; I specifically used the word "judgement" in my nomination for exactly that reason. My nomination asks folks to consider our mission as expressed in WP:NOT and to judge based on the mission. Where is WP:NOT, in your discussion here? (real question, not rhetorical) Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original reporting. It's not routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities. It's hardly breaking news a month later. It's not a biography related to a single event; the biography is incorporated in the article on the event as recommended by NOTNEWS. If you don't consider a few million sources published over the course of more than a month to meet the standard of sustained widespread coverage, then I think you are using a definition that is other than that normally applied by the community. GMG ^talk 14:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what NOTNEWS is about, and again, "sustained" is a much longer timeframe. As I noted above see WP:LASTING - we have no idea of the significance of this event (how could we?). It remains odd to me, that on the one hand you seem to bemoan people filling WP with trivia, yet you !vote to keep here. (btw, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian which was a learning experience for me). I'm interested in your reply, but I will probably respond only briefly to avoid cluttering this up. But thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I guess we are being cluttered. I do bemoan much of Wikipedia. Pop culture especially. Things like this god awful mess and this god awful mess, both of which should still be deleted. I would probably be a solid delete/userfy if this had been nominated the day it was created, when it was just a disappearance, before it took on an international political context, a context that is still very much growing, even in the past 24 hours. But at this point, the subject is not just a routine disappearance; it is a multi-faceted national political event, covered internationally. It's in a topic area (contemporary American politics) in which I spend comparatively limited amount of my time, not because the event is trivial, but because the content is transient, and the entire article will likely be rewritten over the coming months. Whereas work on topics like this has a great deal more permanence. But if other's want to work on it, that's their volunteer time. It's just as likely they'd be loitering on reddit if they weren't, and no guarantee they'd be helping me get this through it's GA review instead. GMG ^talk 15:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying.Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, there is a lot I justify wasting my time on wikipedia by thinking "Well at-least it is better than being on reddit"..

Also while things in American politics have often less permanence, it is still important to have some editors willing to work on it and keep things NPOV because of how many people rely on wikipedia on these things.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is stuff that belongs on reddit, and stuff that belongs here. This is not reddit -- not a place to hash out the meaning or spin of breaking news. We should "report" when there are RS that describe the enduring significance of things. Not fight to shape them. It is more difficult for the editing community when this kind of "hot political" news happens on a topic where we already have an article. We should not even have this one. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page has now been moved to Killing of Mollie Tibbetts Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a cardinal example of sinning against WP:NOTNEWS. A murder story that's barely a month old? It's important to some people to play it up because of the perpetrator, but nobody knows whether this will "take" at this short remove, whatever the vice president says. The There is nothing about this that isn't us repeating routine news coverage. Mangoe (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Like it or not, this story has made international news,[1][2][3] and very clearly meets WP:GNG. This may be wishful thinking, but if allowable it would be good if this AFD could be closed sooner rather than later, per WP:SNOW, as it creates an ugly red box across what is currently a very high traffic article. — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GMG and Amakuru. It was a high-profile disappearance/homicide case even before the alleged suspect's immigration status came into play. If anything, the politicization angle actually confers even more notability, cf. Shooting of Kathryn Steinle. GAB^gab 15:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I will do this. User:GeneralizationsAreBad, would you please directly address WP:LASTING? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that there is no need, as I have sufficiently done so above. Strikerforce^Talk 15:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Each person needs to have their own !vote rationale and you did not address what LASTING says here, you just explained why you want to ignore it. I do understand that you are ignoring it; perhaps others will agree with you; perhaps not. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand that LASTING is just a factor in considering notability and not the end all be all? In beating LASTING to death, you've been ignoring the very next sentence on that page, which is, Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). You've been shown, by @GreenMeansGo: that the subject of the article - the death / killing / murder / whatever editor X would like to call it today of Mollie Tibbetts - has received such coverage. Strikerforce^Talk 15:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that LASTING is just one criteria. It is an important one that directly ties NCRIME into the rest of our mission to be an encyclopedia. It should not be ignored. I have never questioned the extent of coverage; that is necessary but not sufficient for a subject to be notable. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a high-profile killing which has received a great deal of coverage in the MSM & continues to do so. Jim Michael (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep – Article is very well-sourced. Even if coverage stopped today, the case passes WP:GNG by two miles and notability is not temporary. Neutrality issues can be corrected, if any. Recent move to "Killing of Mollie Tibbets" proves this. AfD is not cleanup. — JFG ^talk 16:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep as per JFG and Strikerforce. THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 17:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think strikerforce should have created this article when he did, and he has done this in the past (creating articles before there is evidence that they may be notable), but this have received more media attention than most murders and has political implications. Natureium (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I created -one- such article. I feel as though you're implying that this is something for which I'm a habitual offender. Strikerforce^Talk 17:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this must have been the other article I was thinking of when I was trying to figure out how many NOTNEWS or borderline articles are being created on wikipedia by various editors. Natureium (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that I did prematurely create an article about the Texas parking garage collapse, but that has been my only mistake of this nature to date. Strikerforce^Talk 17:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily fulfills WP:GNG. Not only was the disappearance national news for a whole month (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE), the following impact on politics makes this article also fulfill WP:EFFECT. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to also add that the nominator's reasoning is entirely illegitimate. No Wikipedia policy indicates that an article should be deleted merely because a bunch of editors with an agenda try to demonize the suspect's immigration status. If that were the case, then we should just delete all articles that constantly get derailed by right wing concern trolls (Patriarchy, White privilege, Anita Sarkeesian, etc.) – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. WP:LASTING is part of WP:NCRIME and WP:NOTNEWS is policy. You may choose to ignore the relevant N essay and policy, but you have invalidated your !vote by calling this illegitimate. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, attacking other people's !votes. You may disagree with their reasoning, but nothing "invalidated" his !vote. Please stop attacking the "legitimacy" of other people's !votes. It's very uncivil of you, quite frankly. Additional comment: At this point, why are you even bothering to respond to those opinions with which you disagree? You've made the same point, the same arguments, repeatedly. There's an old saying about a dead horse that would seem to apply here. Strikerforce^Talk 17:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC) additional comment Strikerforce^Talk 17:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Nope, I was responding to an incorrect claim about the legitimacy of the nomination. As I already noted, I am aware that many people choose to ignore aspects of P&G; such a choice is what it is.Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling out your nomination reason as illegitimate, because it doesn't cite policy but instead is a rant about politicization and how the talk page is bogged down in politics. I agree with your assessment, but my claim is that that isn't a criterion for deletion, and that's why your nomination is flawed. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is illegitimate because it is patently ridiculous, and fails WP:COMMONSENSE. I'm sure this AFD was well-intentioned, but with all due respect you should have taken a step back and asked yourself whether an internationally high-profile homicide case really fails GNG before starting it. — Amakuru (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly for us, we are not a newspaper, and not part of the blogosphere. = WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP.

The actual significance of this event will not be known for a long time = WP:LASTING, WP:SUSTAINED.

I cannot help it if you do not recognize the policies and guidelines when they are actually applied.

By the way, if there are RS that describe what the actual lasting significance of this event is -- what it has changed in the real world that has lasting significance -- please cite them. No WP:CRYSTALBALL please - actual significance, actual change. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Can you refrain from letting arguments get personal? Criticize others' arguments instead of insulting their ability to understand policy, especially when the user in question is an admin who the community specifically agreed has a good handle on policy. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:FenixFeather, I am responding to the claim that the nomination is incompetent. It was not. It is legitimate. I await your strike but do not expect it. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If GNG is met - and I would say that the consensus here is that it has been met by this article's subject - is it appropriate to delve deeper into more specialized notability criteria? Strikerforce^Talk 18:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At this point, it may be appropriate to consider a snow keep. As stated by others, GNG is met. The nominator's use of LASTING as their primary argument against the keep !votes in the discussion does not appear to be correctly applied. This is a high-traffic article that has been graded by five different WikiProjects as C-class. The crime, whether we or the Tibbetts family like it or not, has been prominently discussed on a national level as part of the immigration debate. We have a well-sourced article that has no business being deleted. Strikerforce^Talk 17:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should run for a while to get wider input. Am curious what the less immediacy-driven !votes will look like. I'll withdraw if it turns into actual snow. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful back-and-forth

The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.

We're currently at 10-3, in favor of keeping the article, and the rationale being given by those !votes in favor of keeping the article are more in line with policy than what has been presented by those wishing to delete it, and you don't believe that we're not already at SNOW status? Okay. Strikerforce^Talk 18:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can count. This has run only about 4 hours; people are sleeping and at work, etc. I fully expected there to be many keeps based on "There are so many sources OMG!!!!" and knowing that many people ignore LASTING and NOTNEWS but rather think WP should cover breaking news, I will not be shocked if the page is kept. But there is an actual discussion to be had, and having it is a good thing. I get it that you are worked up and offended; that is not my problem. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop with the personal attacks? This now makes at least three different times in this discussion that you have been incivil toward other editors. I am neither worked up, nor offended, and you would not have any way of knowing otherwise. Strikerforce^Talk 18:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the discussion above -- look for bolding. Who is yelling here? Let's each step back and allow other !votes to roll in, shall we? Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding for emphasis is "yelling"? That's a new one on me. ALL CAPS, sure, but not bolding. Strikerforce^Talk 18:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out folks. GMG ^talk 18:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment on the subject - even if that were true (again, it's a new one on me), yelling and personal attacks are completely different things. "I get that you are worked up and offended; that is not my problem", "I await your strike but do not expect it" (rather snide, wouldn't you say?), "You remain confused... I will not reply further", "You are confused... there is nothing more that I can do about that", "but you have invalidated your !vote...", and "I cannot help it if you do not recognize..." are not exactly calm and civil things to say to other editors. You can make the same points and not be so insulting in tone. Strikerforce^Talk 18:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event passes WP:NCRIME; also per the above arguments by GreenMeansGo and Amakuru. I would also support a snow keep closure --Zingarese talk · contribs 18:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received widespread coverage in national media. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME. The breadth and depth of media coverage has conferred notability on the crime. Side note, her family's wishes about the crime being politicized have nothing to do with whether or not the article should be deleted and should not have been mentioned in the nom. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep Jytdog should consider withdrawing (or agreeing to let someone else snow close). GNG is obviously met. This has been front-page news in Iowa for a month, has a lot of national coverage, and comments from Donald Trump. If we keep nearly every stabbing in Germany, we should definitely keep this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:power~enwiki I hear you. I will go to bed in a couple of hours and will likely withdraw this, last thing. In the hatted bit above, I said I would not be surprised if this goes keep; the conversation is worth having. I am however disappointed that no keep !voters have even addressed the questions that WP:LASTING calls us to consider. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you sources of individuals speculating this will have an impact in the November elections [4] or on future legislation [5], but it's impossible to prove something will happen in the future, so it's not a reasonable standard to use for recent events. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LASTING is exactly part of WP:NEVENTS; it remains disappointing that so many editors confuse ruckus in talkingheadland with actual lasting effects. These are the times we live in; it is not a big surprise. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 31 August 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.