Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armanious family massacre

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 delete. The "keep" opinions added since the relist merely assert notability, which is not in doubt, but fail to discuss the additional inclusion requirement that events must have lasting significance (WP:NOTNEWS). Discounting these opinions, we arrive at consensus that this is (until now) merely newspaper-type coverage of current events. Can be recreated if new sources indicate lasting significance.  Sandstein  10:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armanious family massacre

[edit]
Armanious family massacre (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)

Clear WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. The article (permalink) is largely WP:COATRACK for the larger issue of the Coptics and Muslims. It was determined that robbery, not religion was the motive. The event by itself had no lasting impact. The page was one of many created by a now-blocked user CltFn. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a criminal murder/theft; committed by drug dealers. However, the response and coverage [1] at the time were extraordinary. Rumors [2] that the killing was a hate crime committed by Muslims against Coptic Christians made it a national news story. It is useful to have this article here, so that anyone hearing the echo of those old rumors can quickly discover that a garden-variety, low-life, thug was the murderer. But the rationale for keeping is WP:GNG: this murder got extensive, intensive coverage at the time, and in the follow-op of the trial. Rumors can make an criminal matter into a matter of national concern, and when they do, the proper thing for Wikipedia to do is to KEEP. Article needs improvement, I added a bit of copy and a few good sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What on Earth does this have to do with WP:NOTNEWS? What lasting impact does this crime have? There are hundreds, if not thousands of murders and robberies each day. That some people jumped to conclusions regarding the hate crime aspects at the time says what exactly? And what do you mean that it is not WP:COATRACK? Why is more than half the article discussing the religious angle, with comments from various religious figures, and Daniel Pipes etc.? Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What "several books"? I found only three. One of them is a self-published book by a vanity publisher. The other is just a reference book, which lists purported hate crime incidents, originally published in 2005, with a brief, passing mention. The other one is also a brief mention by a book in 2005 (not sure what that is about, I couldn't figure it out). Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point precisely. (Several: More than two but not many). At least three books describe it as a "hate crime". But reasers of those books who look it up on Wikipedia will get the facts. Remember that google book searches are not comprehensive. More like being shown the tip of whatever iceberg you're looking for.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think vanity publishing (paying someone to publish your book) counts, I don't know what to say. Secondly, the other mentions are simply passing mentions of this being a hate crime in 2005 (which turns out not to be true). Even if this were true, does every hate crime have a Wikipedia page? This is precisely why lasting impact is important. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, quite of number of books describe the incident as a hate crime. Published in Dutch and English, by real publishers, these include Hate Crimes: A Reference Handbook, 3rd Edition, Contemporary World Issues, Donald Altschiller, ABC-CLIO, 2015, ISBN 1610699475, 9781610699471. the 3rd (2015) edition lists this as a hate crime. It is no longer regarded as such by the police. I thing it's a good thing for readers to be able to check facts like that against a brief article in Wikipedia, because reference books can be out of date or in error.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable incident supported by ample reliable and verifiable sources about the case. The fact that it was widely believed / purported to be a hate crime or terrorism only adds to the enduring notability of the case. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are ample sources to show this has lasting significance and was not just a small news event. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Editorofthewiki: Can you elaborate on what lasting significance this event has, and which sources show this? Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KingsIndian, WP:BLUDGEON, here you repeat a question I responded to above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the various guidelines of WP:EVENT, including WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE. It is not uncommon for there to be news reports of a murder, then follow-up about the trial, conviction, sentencing, and appeals. This is routine coverage of a crime and it fails WP:NOTNEWS, one of the exceptions to WP:GNG. Initial thoughts that was a hate crime were dispelled over the course of the investigation, and it actually did not receive much coverage outside of the NY metro area (i.e. fails WP:GEOSCOPE). A search of GBooks is not persuasive. One author listed it (tantamount to trivial coverage) as a hate crime in his 2005 book prior to the facts coming out[4] and didn't even bother to update it for his 2015 version.[5] If there was WP:INDEPTH coverage, I might reconsider. As Kingsindian mentioned, the other is self-published.[6] - Location (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTTEMPORARY. A handful of the many in-depth explorations of this event and its impact are blue-linked in my comment below. My efforts to improve this article, by bringing sources expolring it's use as propaganda (both accusations of Muslim-on-Christian hate crime, and accusations that incident was used to fuel fear/hatred of Muslims) have been removed from page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speaking of WP:BLUDGEON, I was wondering when you would come along to offer a reply.) WP:NOTTEMPORARY states: "As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events." This event never passed WP:LASTING, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:GEOSCOPE, or WP:INDEPTH so WP:NOTTEMPORARY is not relevant. - Location (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment173 words of the article's 689, about 25% deal with the crime and conviction. The article, it follows, is not about the murder at all, but about the innuendoes and suspicions re Muslims at the time, who had nothing to do with it. That is technically therefore a WP:COATRACK, the crime being an excuse to talk about Muslims as terrorists. If the article is to stay, those who back it should roll up their sleeves, wikify it, and create distinct sections, separating the actual facts of the case, with the huge load of circumstantial paranoia surrounding the case. As it stands the title should be changed to reflect the content, along the lines of Armanious family massacre: the Facts and Ethnic Suspicions .Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the incident is not a poster child for anything. The NYT article is an in-passing photo in a regional story on NJ crime statistics. It has no mention of any hate crime angle, as expected. All of the other links are in January 2005, in close proximity to the crime, when there was random speculation. I am still waiting for any demonstration of lasting impact. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But note that KingsIndian fails to address my actual argument - extent and depth of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were 36 murders in Jersey City in 2005. There is only one article on Wikipedia about any of those murders. (See: Wikipedia's category on 2005 murders in Jersey City.) That is not an accident. The article was started with a political agenda (ongoing effort to make Islam/Muslims look as bad as possible on Wikipedia) and it continues. This "Gregory" fellow is obviously at Wikipedia with an unpleasant agenda. It is sadly not surprising that it's being tolerated to this extent. (Adding: Fer chrissake; the original version of the article was 75% about "rumors" that had already been demonstrated to be false at the time of creation, and leans heavily on the serial fabricator/propagandist Robert Spencer. So it goes.Dan Murphy (talk)
  • Honestly? I hardly glanced at the original article before I googled to see what sources were out there. it's not worth spending much time on an AFD if it's obvious that there are not sources, or that - as in this case - there are many. So after a quick glance, I search for sources. I do, as I did here, add some of the sources I find if the sourcing looks weak. Sometimes I'm sufficiently captivated by some aspect of the article to go in and really improve it, really try to sort the issues out. other times I just point out that sources and notability exist and move on. More or less leaving the article itself to someone who is familiar with the topic, or interested in it. This case posed special issues because of the tendency of editors not only to delete what was obviously a notable incident, but of the article as it was to make it look like it really was a hate crime, while recent editors have tired to edit out the accusations/early indications that it might have been a hate crime - This, frankly, puzzles me because it seems useful to keep refutation of false accusations of hate crimes on Wikipedia. If I ever had heard of Spencer before today, I must have found him was entirely forgettable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note' Multiple reliable sources have today been removed, by a pair of extremely tendentious editors. User:Dan Murphy in particular appears to think that Wikipedia is some sort of video game that he can "win" by selectively deleting questions about his editing from his talk page, and by deleting sources from this article while it is at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate changes since the nomination.  Sandstein  18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ. Just out of curiosity: have you ever not voted Keep for this kind of article? All I recall is a predictable Keep vote on every occasion, with no evidence of a reasoned opinion.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate, User:Nishidani. I don't see you editing at AFD very often, but I see BabbaQ here all the time, on a range ot topics, sometimes voting keep and sometimes voting delete. Please try to remember that WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a stub, sourced, i dont see any reason to delete. Donottroll (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to clarify my position here. I would not have nominated the article as it currently exists, since it is no longer a WP:COATRACK article. Much of the objectionable content has been removed. But that does not mean that the article should exist. Nobody has even pretended to give any WP:PERSISTENCE based arguments that stand up to two minutes scrutiny. This was a storm in the teacup, was debunked, and everyone has since forgot about it. The editor who created it had nothing good in their intention, and has been since blocked for their various sins. Wikipedia space is practically infinite so I don't mind if it stays, but it is a singularly useless article, which nobody will read. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed in major national and international newspapers. It was discussed in major media for at least a decade (many sources have been removed form the article during this debate). More to the point, WP:NOTTEMPORARY Reads: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." and WP:PERSISTENCE does not apply because, as the articles I linked to above show, coverage was not limited to articles "published during or immediately after an event," it included substantive followup and "analysis or discussion."E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets notability guidelines given the non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a routine news story. An event with no lasting significance. There's nothing really here other depth of coverage. While it may meet WP:GNG by that alone, it does not meet WP:EVENT which is also a notability guideline that points out in the case of an event depth of coverage is not enough in itself.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Serialjoepsycho. Reading the article, it boils down to this: "Family killed in robbery, incorrect assumptions were made as to motivation which caused an isolated issue, story over." There is nothing actually in the article indicating a timeline of "lasting effect." Passing mentions in books are trivial coverage. Existence is not notability; just because somebody mentions something doesn't make it noteworthy. My television remote is not notable simply because it mentions a well-known TV manufacturer's name on it. This is, in historical context, just another crime and which, frankly, still seems to be coatracking religion by making a huge deal about it in the lede, when in fact it didn't matter in the slightest. MSJapan (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2015 (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/Armanious_family_massacre&oldid=1137435821"