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. Pretty clear consensus to delete, given the lack of lasting impact. Murder is almost always newsworthy; it is rarely encyclopedic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Sydney stabbing attack (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)

Article was PRODded by User:Comatmebro, and that was reverted without explanation by the article creator. I believe this should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS: there is nothing here of any lasting importance; in the end it was just another crime, just another crazy killing, and I suspect the only reason this was ever written up, or ever garnered some media attention, is that the guy yelled something associated with a certain kind of terrorism--a connection that, if I read the article correctly, was of no value whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Indeed WP:NOTNEWS of a sadly horrible but common crime which gets a week in the news but is barely followed up on after outside the standard 'oh yeah that happened' story when the sentencing happens. Nate • (chatter) 21:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to me to be a bad faith nomination for me removing a prod from another article that Drmies had placed. Also this received worldwide media attention not just some local incident. By Drmies thinking all school shootings are not notable. What about 2019 California stabbing attacks or London Home Office stabbing Simmo86 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That I have no faith in your judgment is a fact. Please write in complete sentences, especially if you tell lies about me, like about me "thinking all school shootings are not notable". I don't care about those other articles you mention; they have nothing to do with this one. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTNEWS and the elaborations of nom and Nate. (Though it has no bearing on the present discussion: at first glance, the other two articles Simmo86 mentions are also good candidates for deletion, for the same reasons. Edit: in fact now I've sent one to AfD: a stabbing with no deaths and no apparent significance whatsoever.) --JBL (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Note that the one you sent to AFD was resulted in keeping. Becouse it was a rare occurance like this one in Sydney. Simmo86 (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure which AfD discussion you are looking at – the one JBL refers to above has not been closed (it only opened a few hours ago), and is not about a rare or unusual incident (sadly). --bonadea contributions talk 11:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I should have linked, sorry; the AfD I started is here. --JBL (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this initially got some coverage as a "terrorist" attack in Australia, but this proved misleading. A mentally ill young man killed a prostitute he was visiting (and who he visited before) and then ran into the street, attacking other people. I was working nearby and - at the risk of breaking Wikipedia's rules - can assure everyone that the CBD was not locked down and there was not mass panic. The whole incident was over in a few minutes. As I have said on the Talk page, Australia has about 100-200 homicide incidents a year. The majority involve a knife or another sharp implement. This is not notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Jack Upland. I saw your edits and comments and I appreciate them. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While this incident was widely covered in reliable sources at the time, it has been shown to be a consequence of mental illness, and has no lasting significance. WWGB (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jackbauer, "our man in Amsterdam". ——SN54129 08:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was covered significantly for some time in Australia and was national news in the same vein as the 2018 Melbourne attack. The attacker was in the news again as recently as March for court proceedings. I remember the ABC covered the victim significantly. This wasn't covered like a random crime and I'm surprised at the characterisation of the event as "only written up because possible terrorist motive" for what was reported as a major incident. SportingFlyer T·C 09:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's ABC news in Australia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically any major crime will receive coverage in the immediate aftermath and perhaps around the time of court proceedings; that's about the question "is it newsworthy?" But saying "yes it's newsworthy" is a very far cry from saying yes it's encyclopedic. --JBL (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read WP:NOTNEWS and I don't think this qualifies in the slightest. NOTNEWS implies routine, this was not a routine event. The event continues to be covered, see [1] [2] [3] and it's already received an academic mention in Meanjin. I'm not sure what that ABC comment is in reference to, as it was a major event in Australia, which doesn't normally have high profile crimes like this one. I'm in the minority here, but I can still be vociferous! SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, two of the sources you provided are seven months old [4], [5] and one is five months old [6]. The only follow-up is the suspect going to court. This shows it is not an on-going story. There is no impact here. It's all routine news.

Murders occur in major cities, and that's a fact jack. For most of the time it doesn't impact anything except the lives of those immediately involved somehow, such as the victim, the victim's family, obviously the suspect and probably the suspect's family. A very small sphere of influence. [WP:LASTING]. In the press it gets turned into WP:sensationalism. There is a familiar saying, "If it bleeds it leads!" ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you "sorry to say" this? There's an argument here this was only in the news in the days immediately following the attack, I'm showing that's not the case. There's no rule that the news has to follow up on the event on a daily basis. There was another story from March as well in the Daily Telegraph but I can't access this. The impact here was larger than just the immediate family, and the coverage went national and wasn't sensationalised. This isn't your normal American murder. I don't know how else to convey that. SportingFlyer T·C 21:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sportingflyer. This was probably the most publicised attack in the Sydney CBD since the 2014 siege. Even if it doesn't deserve its own article there should be a place for it somewhere on Wikipedia. Deus et lex (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm with Sportingflyer on this. This made it to the news even in India. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And? Where's the lasting influence? Drmies (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NOTNEWS. This is a very unfortunate set of circumstances but it's one incident. Not really of national significance or global significance. Just an ordinary homicide. No connection to terrorism. No indication of something that will endure over time - failing a prerequisite for notability. Steve Quinn (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont forget about Asia https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/sydney-police-respond-to-incident-in-cbd-reports-11804550 NZ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12258370 & USA https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/13/australian-police-say-woman-stabbed-in-downtown-sydney-attack.html Simmo86 (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that is all Australian coverage. New Zealand is essentially the same thing. And it's the same story over and over and over. It might as well be one news article or one TV broadcast. Lacking in significance. Fails Notability Events. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • • NZ,UK,USA and Australia are different places. Not "All Australian coverage" Sorry but you're incorrect. Simmo86 (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree. When Australia sneezes New Zealand gets a cold. And coverage by CNBC does not constitute U.S. coverage. CNBC is fully capable of localizing coverage for a local national or even regional market. Same with other networks. The U.S. rarely needs coverage of Kangaroos. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Coverage in NZ is the same as OZ, how ridiculous!! by that reasoning any coverage in Canada or Mexico is the same as USA, any coverage in any EU country is the same as Germany (although France would also be in the running:)), any Scandavian country's coverage is the same as each other ... ad nauseam. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A-chooo! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've been re-thinking one aspect of this. Since this was initially thought of as a possible terrorist attack it could be that this initially made news around the world. So, I am willing to concede that. However, after it was discovered this was not a terrorist attack, then in my view, it became a run of the mill crime-news story. So my i-vote has not changed. I'm not seeing where this caused a re-assessment or readjustment of how the police, the criminal justice system, the Aussie government, or society operates - for example. Maybe someone has some info on this. I'm willing to hear it. And yes, New Zealand is not part of Australia regarding coverage. I shouldn't have said that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fail of Wikipedia:Notability (events), and particularly the first sentence of the overall guideline: An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. All of the article references are at/close to the date of the event, which underline the case that this "event" had "no lasting major consequences" or "coverage that persists over a period of time"; coverage is not the issue. Britishfinance (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jack as well as per NOTNEWS - Had this been a terrorist incident then I would've !voted Keep however it wasn't, Not every stabbing-incident needs an article, I also agree with Comeatmebro's and Drmies's actions here. –Davey2010^Talk 10:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've added some of this content at Crime in New South Wales given that it was a notable attack that was widely reported within Australia. Deus et lex (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that is the kind of thing that makes sense. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I note some opposition essentially along the lines of "It made the news where I live too", but that doesn't make it not WP:NOTNEWS. It would need to have more widespread and lasting impact outside of the crime itself in order to make a valid article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I agree with the nominator et al, this does not meet WP:NEVENTS. --bonadea contributions talk 11:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Steve Quinn, I fail to see lasting impact that would generally be expected for events like this, per WP:LASTING. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per NOTNEWS. A sadly commonplace event. NOTNEWS is a pillar policy. It isn't applied anywhere near often enough. John from Idegon (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete a sad occurance, but still not notable. the news made it to Indis, and Ireland. But it was just a news, extremely tiny coverage, just another news with lasting influence, or sustained coverage. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:NEVENT, and WP:NOTNEWS, although some mentions in international media (probably due to sensationalism of members of the public being involved, and who can forget images of the perpetrator being pinned down with a milk crate!), no lasting consequences/effects (reporting on subsequent trials, even years later do not (usually) count). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per my original deletion post. Comatmebro (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Got coverage for a short period, sad but an ordinary incident. Alex-h (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is obviously a typical non-notable crime. I do not understand why would anyone create this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @My very best wishes: - the article was created because it was a significantly-covered story at the time in Australia involving a public attack in the Sydney Central Business District, particularly after the 2014 siege and a couple of incidents in Victoria. Deus et lex (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to publications, the perpetrator suffered from mental illness and did not get his medication in time. Was he even convicted? I do not see anything about conviction. His motivation is not clear. Was he connected with any terrorist organizations? I do not see it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2020 (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.