Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Nabra Hassanen

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. Sandstein 13:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Nabra Hassanen

[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)

Not a notable crime. All murders may be tragic, but not all are notable. No claim of notability, and no coverage other than immediate news-wire coverage and WP:MILL local coverage of court proceedings. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As a violation of WP:BLPCRIME edging on WP:G10 territory for naming a non-convicted suspect in a non-notable tragedy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this reasoning. The suspect pleaded guilty to rape and murder [1]. wumbolo ^^^ 18:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid argument by Simonm223, Man pleads guilty in Muslim teen's 2017 death in Northern Virginia , BBC: Nabra Hassanen: Virginia man admits murder of teenage girl; Washington Post: Sterling man pleads guilty to murder in killing of Muslim teen. Final sentencing hearing scheduled for March 2019. Simonm223 is wasting our time unless you look at the article and run a search or two WP:BEFORE making ignorant assertions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Per good referencing. And continued coverage. Also per WP:NCRIME.WP:G10 does not apply.BabbaQ (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there continuing coverage? The article in the Richmond paper about his sentencing hearing is the type of coverage that I do NOT consider sufficient - it's local coverage of a local court hearing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to two 2018 books that rehearse the details of the case (added to the page) , there is there is a one-year-anniversary revisit in Slate: Why Nabra? One year after a Muslim teen’s brutal rape and murder, her community is still in mourning—and torn over whether her killing was a hate crime. There may be more, I just started looking.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage of the crime when it occurred was anything but WP:MILL, for a day or two the world assumed that this was a hate crime, that a girl wearing a hijab had been attacked for walking-while-Muslim, drawing coverage in the national and international press - and op-eds and columns - that do not accrue to "routine" abduction/rape/murder cases. Coverage did settle down once police investigators established that this was not a hate crime. But there was follow-up, including Slate: https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/06/nabra-hassanen-killing-one-year-later-was-it-a-hate-crime.html and 2 serious sounding books published the details. Nom's perhaps hastily written statement is inaccurate, coverage has met WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE and although it is not yet 2 years sine the murder (sentencing is scheduled for March,) there has been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I can see on the page, this is a "road rage" murder by someone who was mentally disabled. I do not see how this can be notable encyclopedic content. Also, there was no sentence yet. This is WP:NOT and WP:Recentism. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perp has pled guilty. Has been convicted. Is awaiting sentencing, scheduled for March.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judged sufficiently mentally able to stand trial. "road rage" is in interesting way to describe chasing a girl on foot, shoving her into a car, driving to a dark place, raping her, murdering her, and dumping her body in a pond. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCRIME; sourcing is routine. No long-term significance or societal impact. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m neutral on keeping or deleting because I’m ambivalent... but it needs draftication because there is an absurd level of neutrality issues (hmm... I wonder who that might might be coming from). Trillfendi (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable crime. nableezy - 23:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - defective nomination which ought to be withdrawn. How can the nom claim "no coverage other than immediate news-wire coverage" when Slate went back on the anniversary and did an WP:INDEPTH, for example? Fact is, lack of doing a WP:BEFORE is unacceptable and causes a waste of everyone's time; hopefully the closing admin will have something to say about the "immediate news-wire coverage" claim. Clearly the case meets WP:GNG; see for example, the BBC coverage. A keeper, if there ever was one. XavierItzm (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient coverage throughout 2018 as reflected in sources such as [2] & [3], thus Keep per E.M.Gregory. Kou Dou 05:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Continuing international news coverage - e.g. BBC, described as a "high-profile killing " in a RS [4]. If there are BLP issues in regards to naming the accused - then that should be rectified in the article (by avoiding naming him) - that's not grounds for deletion. Icewhiz (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per BLPCRIME - I removed the accused's name. He did agree to plead guilty, but better safe than sorry - we can wait until it is all settled in court (scheduled for March). Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Not convinced by nom. No BLP issues at the moment. wumbolo ^^^ 17:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be a spate of articles about non-notable crimes committed by undocumented Hispanic immigrants. O3000 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz. Natureium (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep heard about this in Canada. High profile. Legacypac (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly sufficient sources to satisfy NCRIME. RECENTISM, MILL, BLPCRIME concerns have all been shown not to apply. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2019 (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.