Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sewer Murders

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sewer Murders[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)

Youtube videos are not RS, and remove that and there is nothing here other then a lot of synthasis (1976 was not in the 80's) tying up these into the acts of a serial killer. Far too ORy. Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The synthesis follows that of the "Kriminalreport Hessen" video. While the link goes to YouTube, it is a serious Hessischer Rundfunk TV production. Two older cases are presented in Aktenzeichen XY … ungelöst, also a fairly reliable source for German unsolved crime. So the video sources are not just random YouTube videos. Anyway, I am not convinced this is encyclopaedia material unless there are more RS covering this as a murder series. —Kusma (t·c) 12:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But have they been edited in any way, this is why you tube is iffy. I cannot tell?Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are on Youtube instead of on a proper public archive because of idiotic German legislation (compare de:Depublizieren). But you are right, they could have been tampered with (although there is no reason to assume they were). —Kusma (t·c) 13:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came to a similar conclusion as Kusma. Two cases where covered in an episode on 24.04.1984 and in an episode on 03.11.1989 it is revealed that they where part of a larger series after finding the sixth victim who had been missing for 6 years. I found a reference to a book of Stephan Harbort that is covering the case, but a booksearch on google is not successful in identifying the book. If the book could be identified we should have ~~two~~ three major sources apart from various press articles (which may or may not be relevant) that should satisfy WP:GNG. ~~If not, it stands on Aktenzeichen XY alone and would not be notable.~~ Agathoclea (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned about whether or not there is OR going on regarding which cases to include. Also I am not sure the press articles are anything more then useful for establishing each individual case happened. I am not sure they say anything about serial killer. So can we have some quotes establishing this is a serial killer, and not just a series of individual episodes?Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The available "Kriminalreport Hessen" clearly speaks of a series. I do not have access to the book, but inclusion in that book only makes sense if it was considered a serial murder. The book is even mentioned in the article . The writeup on Aktenzeichen XY indicates that it was only later that it was realized to be a series. The discrepancy of 1976 not being in the 80s indicates that that case was only later linked. The bulk of the cases happened in the 80s. "Kriminalreport Hessen" sounds like 76, also being out of the area, was linked later to the other cases. I would like to know the publication date of that report, as the investigating police officer was already retired at the time of being interviewed. Agathoclea (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

found it Agathoclea (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking it over for almost a week per above I go for keep Agathoclea (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG. The sources looks ok as well.BabbaQ (talk) 11:35, 20 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.