Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Ibolya Ryan

Add links
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 no consensus. Delete !voters are essentially invoking WP:NOTNEWS for deletion, while keep !voters are essentially (for the most part) invoking WP:EVENTCRIT for retention. Overall, no consensus for one course of action regarding the article has emerged in this discussion. NorthAmerica1000 20:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Ibolya Ryan[edit]

Murder of Ibolya Ryan (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)
  • Delete Pr WP:EVENT/WP:NOTNEWS. A woman was murdered yesterday; She was a teacher, knifed to death by an unknown killer. Tragic as it is; there are thousands of murders which happen all over the world, every single day, I don´t see anything that makes *this* murder particularly noteworthy. I suggest that the author of this article takes it to his user-space, and let us see how the case develops. Huldra (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Huldra (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I remind Huldra and the editors below of WP:RAPID.ShulMaven (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Huldra follows me around like a hound dog on a scent, slapping AfDs on terrorism-related articles.ShulMaven (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear-cut case of NOTNEWS, and I would like to add that the persistent creation of such articles can be considered disruptive. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I would like to add taht following editors around, joining AfDs on patently notable topics they write article on, and calling the creation of new articles on WP:GNG topics "disruptive" can be considered bullying.ShulMaven (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. If it proves to be notable per WP:EVENT, it can be recreated. I share Drmies's concern about the disruptive mass-creation of spam articles on violence attributed to Arabs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A severe case of recentitis here. It is a rather sad testimony on our society that murder is routine news, but unless something stands out about this then there's really nothing newsworthy about this particular tragedy. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, attacks on foreigners are virtually unheard of in Abu Dhabi/U.A.E which is why the international press has been all over this.ShulMaven (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have edited the topic adding detailed information and credible references. I believe it should not be deleted for the importance of the event and the probability of getting major updates about it, relating the crime to international terrorism movements that might be involved in the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmemsme (talk • contribs) 10:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability. Every murder of a westerner gets a few press articles, big deal. Zerotalk 09:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although this is a recent murder, it instantly garnered far more than routine coverage, and continues to do so in the days after the murder. And keep for the obvious reason that this murderer was targeting strangers on the sole basis of the victims' national origin, making the murder notable as a matter of wide public concern. Some of the comments above lead me to assume that the commenter did not take the trouble to see how much coverage exists, although AfD is a question of the article's notability, not the article's quality. Moreover, some editors here appear to have attempted to sink the article by removing information (about the victim) that routinely appears in murder articles. Meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT WP:GEOSCOPE - worldwide coverage of far more than routine nature in leading papers that have followeed developments int he case, and Note particularly the amount of WP:INDEPTH coverage that has appeared. ShulMaven (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As was the case with the AfD on Shooting of Tamir Rice, Wikipedia AfD tags slapped on pages by editors failing to consider WP:RAPID on major current events getting hundreds of hits a day are an embarrassment to Wikipedia.ShulMaven (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The actual embarrassment is editors using this project as another front in their Israel-Palestine propaganda war. Deaths in what is for all intents and purposes a warzone just aren't notable by default. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Despite Tarc, Abu Dhabi is not a "warzone".ShulMaven (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is now been officially categorized as at least a lone wolf terrorist attack, and it was an obvious possibility as soon as the crime was reported, with international impact since the attacker appears to be motivated by radicalized religious beliefs, and the victim was a foreign American teacher. International terrorist attacks are always notable. Editors should be vigilant in preventing deletion of violent terrorist or terrorist-like attacks which may be part of an organized disinformation campaign Bachcell (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True. Plus there will be a trial, with corresponding ongoing coverage. Not mention coverage generated by the fact that Abu Dhabi will give Ryan's former husband the right to decide whether to impose the death penalty.ShulMaven (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a newspaper. And to see whether this has any lasting impact, well, we'll have to wait and see... WP:CRYSTAL. Note that the expected coverage mentioned just above by ShlMaven still does not push this over the bar of a routine event (sadly enough). And I, too, agree with Drmies that the repeated creation of this kind of articles is disruptive. --Randykitty (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it stated that "lasting impact" is required? WP:GNG reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". And WP:EVENT section WP:LASTING does not require that impact be lasting. Merely it states that enduring impact may indicate notability. Moreover WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here, it applies to cases of "predict(ing) the future." Here we establish WP:GNG simply by referencinf reporting by major newspapers on a murder and attempted terror bombing that actually happened. ShulMaven (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Events like this are routine and inherently unencyclopedic, unless there's a lastig legacy. WP is not a newspaper. PLease post stuff like this on Wikinews where it may be appropriate. --Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not answered my question,: Where is it written that to pass WP:GNG an event must have enduring impact?ShulMaven (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We differ. I have also read WP:NOTNEWS:"As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." I see ethnically-targeted terror attacks as significant events; you don't. To each his own. What I do object to is an experienced editor failing to acknowledge having made an insufficiently nuanced assertion on an AfD on something like "enduring impact". And I strongly object to being accused of "disruptive" editing for the act of creating a new article, when, clearly, the most that can be said is not that I am disruptive, but that opinions on whether this murder is notable.ShulMaven (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The widespread coverage of the event and its aftermath, coupled with the unusual and prominent media response of the Abu Dhabi government, leave little to no doubt that this event satisfies the GNG and associated event-related policies and guidelines. The suggestion/implication of delete proponents that the murder of a non-Israeli Christian by a non-Palestinian Muslim, more than a thousand miles away from Israel and Palestine, should be treated as a routine aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is beyond illogical and is impossible to treat as credible. What is genuinely disruptive here are the ongoing efforts by partisans on each side of the underlying disputes to suppress information which reflects poorly on their "side" of the dispute. There is a certain willful blindness in this sort of discussion: Even though we know that the underlying conflicts have been the subject of detailed historical, political, and academic analysis for decades, and that events which receive this much substantial initial coverage will continue to receive sustained attention in formal scholarly works and historical books, there seems to be no end of pointless and purposefully divisive, extended discussion which does nothing to improve or to promote improvement of this encyclopedia. We ought to adopt a hard-and-fast rule that every incident treated as a terrorist killing by reliable media and receiving substantial initial coverage is deemed to satisfy requirements for an article. Whatever ill effects there might be from including less important events will be far outweighed by the amount of disruptive and divisive discussion that is prevented. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"We ought to adopt a hard-and-fast rule that every incident treated as a terrorist killing by reliable media and receiving substantial initial coverage is deemed to satisfy requirements for an article." I endorse this proposal.ShulMaven (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's utter nonsense. Regrettably, terrorist attacks are becoming routine, too. Are we going to document every stabbing/killing in Iraq, Afghanistan, etx? Or are we only going to document them when the victim is a Westerner? --Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope for a world in which Afghans have an independent press along with full literacy and the right to freedom of speech that makes Wikipedia possible. I also hope for a world in which ideologically motivated killings of individuals targeted for belonging to the "wrong" ethnic group is an unheard of event. But until then, yes, please, do write up "every stabbing/killing in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc." that can be supported with reliable sources. Earlier today I was beginning to write up, and source, some, well, what I suppose you would call "routine" mass rapes of the "wrong" ethnic group in Darfur by UNAMID. I consider it significant. So do The Economist, Slate and Foreign Policy.ShulMaven (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it was discussed in my Introduction to Law class today; I didn't even raise the issue. This appears to be an ongoing matter of public concern beyond a single news cycle. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is an incident of significant importance and should not be deleted.  SAMI  talk 12:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significant importance and it is established in sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Unforunately, this IS news. 69,000 news article hits, including CNN, the Wall Street Journal, etc. This isn't an "ordinary" murder case - it's one that's garnered significant coverage, widespread coverage, and independent coverage. Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 01:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cited in many reliable secondary sources. This article is clearly news. BenLinus1214 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NOTNEWS. Of course there are tons of "secondary sources" — this is true for every sensational news happening, which is why we have NOTNEWS. No indication of lasting historic importance at this very early juncture. Carrite (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is clearly news and it has widespread coverage.-- Abstrakt (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely correct: clearly news... That's what WP is about, isn't it? Oh, wait! That's Wikinews we're talking about, not an encyclopedia... --Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – People are not reading WP:EVENT. This must be deleted. Someone above says "this article is clearly news". I can happily say to him that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so it doesn't matter if it is "news". We are an encylopaedia, and this event has no encyclopaedic significance or WP:LASTING impact. It is a parochial crime that has no place on Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 03:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the level of attention it has received, it's astonishing that anyone would want to delete the article. Everyking (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Ibolya_Ryan&oldid=1138104004"