Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Freiburg gang rape

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. Bordering on keep. Sandstein 21:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Freiburg gang rape

[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)

Page covers an event that falls under WP:NOTNEWS. At article talk, the only editor willing to defend the existence of the article could not justify how it met criteria for WP:EVENTCRIT. Article is part of a walled garden on crimes in Germany with refugee suspects and there have been repeated attempts to link it in copy to unrelated crimes on the basis that suspects investigated by the police include refugees when there is no other correlation between the crimes. Little evidence of sustained coverage. No media coverage outside of routine crime reportage in the German press. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per #4 of WP:EVENTCRIT. While the claim is "shocking", rape is sadly common, and there is not much reason to believe that this one will hold significance in the longer term. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is terribly difficult. The topic does have basic notability. What it does not have is balance, either in its content or in the sources quoted, and particularly in terms of the significance claimed for it. The fact that certain sections of the German media may be guilty of equally unbalanced reporting doesn't make it okay for us to follow their lead. It is one element in a systematic campaign by one or two editors to ensure that crimes committed in Germany by immigrants get maximum publicity in English-language sources whilst similar crimes committed by native Germans get none. Frankly, if the crime figures for Germany really reflected what the article creator would like to claim, then it would not be significant in context, as is evinced by the fact that there was no article on the subject in German Wikipedia until 2 November, when an anonymous user created one. (It could be coincidental that the creator of the article we are currently discussing, a native German speaker, was blocked from this Wikipedia earlier on that day.) Failing deletion, I would propose a redirect to the existing article, Immigration and crime in Germany, which already lists many such crimes individually. Deb (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT, it is not terribly difficult to balance an article. As to your complaint, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor do we assess notability according to what the media choose to cover. When WP:RS cover it, we cover it. And, yeah, it probably did get extra coverage because the Murder of Maria Ladenburger was also in Freiburg; news media work like that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it is extremely difficult to achieve balance in an article like this; I should know, I have actually tried, and have been reverted at every turn. Deb (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now there has been WP:SIGCOV per coverage in national German media such as Der Spiegel,T-Online and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as well as The New York Times. There's also political fallout due to police neglecting to arrest the perpetrator which has reached the state-level of the Bundesland in question, Baden-Württemberg, involving state interior minister Thomas Strobl. AadaamS (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AadaamS: We've heard this story before, "this time there will be government action." Only per WP:CRYSTAL that's not a reason for notability. And I'll point out that I asked you several times at article talk to explain how this meets WP:EVENTCRIT and you refused to do so. Simonm223 (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact when I asked you about WP:EVENTCRIT here, you asked me to take this to AfD rather than providing a justification at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: it was you who first mentioned an AfD and it is the better way to resolve a notability dispute as it involves more editors. So thanks for the nomination I will of course happily abide by the outcome of the AfD. AadaamS (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AadaamS: I'm simply pointing out that I gave you ample opportunity to explain the notability before posting an AfD and you asked me to post the AfD rather than do so. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when searching for WP:RS sources in German for this article, it helps to search for Gruppenvergewaltigung Freiburg using a search engine suited to the task. AadaamS (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV, and this story just broke, so keep as per WP:RAPID.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not that rapid I wouldn't have placed the AfD if there had been even the slightest attempt to justify how this non-notable crime met WP:EVENTCRIT from the only person who defended it article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SIGCOV and RAPID. Story broke in 26 Oct with wide international coverage (e.g. wapo). There is continuing coverage in November on potential political implications - [1][2]. Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:RAPID with significant International coverage .The only question is whether it will pass WP:LASTING that cannot be determined at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although WP:NCRIME doesn't give much help, there is extended coverage of this crime and it seems to be tied to the media theme about the influx of refugees and public safety. Removals in the article itself seem to be just motivated by the belief that the mere coverage of high-profile crimes and the criminals' immigration status itself is "racist"[3]. --Pudeo (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with wide national and international coverage.--Falkmart (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the impact of it and WP:SIGCOV. Maybe in a few years it can be revisited if it isn't shown to meet WP:LASTING by then. JC7V-talk 19:36, 10 November 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.