Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villejuif stabbing: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
afd delete.
Line 16: Line 16:
:::I think the coverage is extensive & thorough enough considering how recently this happened. You'll need to show evidence of your suggestion about media companies with the same owner repeating the same things in order to demonstrate that. [[User:Jim Michael|Jim Michael]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael|talk]]) 22:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
:::I think the coverage is extensive & thorough enough considering how recently this happened. You'll need to show evidence of your suggestion about media companies with the same owner repeating the same things in order to demonstrate that. [[User:Jim Michael|Jim Michael]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael|talk]]) 22:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - At the end of the day France is now investigating it as an act of terror. It also involves a death so this is a big terror case. So I think it's an easy answer as "yes, we should keep" - [[User:11S117|11S117]] ([[User talk:11S117|talk]]) 3:13 , 5 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - At the end of the day France is now investigating it as an act of terror. It also involves a death so this is a big terror case. So I think it's an easy answer as "yes, we should keep" - [[User:11S117|11S117]] ([[User talk:11S117|talk]]) 3:13 , 5 January 2020 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', as another example of [[WP:NOTNEWS]], when did this attack/police response occur? 3 January, and when was this article created? [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Villejuif_stabbing&offset=&limit=100&action=history 3 January], how can it/its impact possibly be significant/long lasting? [[User:Coolabahapple|Coolabahapple]] ([[User talk:Coolabahapple|talk]]) 06:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:57, 5 January 2020

Villejuif stabbing (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)

WP:NOTNEWS This story rated three column inches in today's Guardian, and I verymuch doubt that it will have any lasting significance. TheLongTone (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this is just a random stabbing without any motive like many others, you can delete it. But I think that we have to wait the investigation. If this is stabbing is terror-related, with a religious or a political background, the article is necessary. User:Gianluigi02
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 15:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 15:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but are they parroting the same narrative? This isn't called extensive coverage if one news source is saying the exact same thing as another news source. You also have to keep in mind that groups of news organizations are owned by the same parent company. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the coverage is extensive & thorough enough considering how recently this happened. You'll need to show evidence of your suggestion about media companies with the same owner repeating the same things in order to demonstrate that. Jim Michael (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At the end of the day France is now investigating it as an act of terror. It also involves a death so this is a big terror case. So I think it's an easy answer as "yes, we should keep" - 11S117 (talk) 3:13 , 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, as another example of WP:NOTNEWS, when did this attack/police response occur? 3 January, and when was this article created? 3 January, how can it/its impact possibly be significant/long lasting? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]