This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
No edit warring has happened here. I tagged your article for a citation and removed a paragraph that was not written from a neutral point of view. Please ensure that all your edits abide by the neutral point of view policy from now on. Deb (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are edit-warring - you didn't discuss at all, just repeating your comment. The source is a reputable source, the article is perfectly neutral when it mentions similar cases. I wonder, if WP:JUSTDON'TLIKEIT is a motive. And you are still obviously wikihounding me. Please stop that.--Greywin (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the jargon. It makes no difference to the fact that you have an agenda that conflicts with the neutral point of view policy. Deb (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As per my question on the other article in this walled garden, is there any evidence that this is notable per WP:EVENTCRIT? Also, the section about the "perpetrator" assumes the suspects guilt, has he been convicted? Because per WP:BLPCRIME we can't assume guilt before trial even in an open and shut case.Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the passages that claim guilt of the suspect without evidence of a trial and have cut irrelevant details such as the birth nationality of the various parties - which seems completely irrelevant to a garden-variety example of brutal domestic violence. Considering what we're left with I'm of the position this is not a notable crime. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That attack in London won't have received international media coverage - unlike this one in Hamburg - because the victims in the London attack were men. Even the national media coverage of the London attack would have been brief, hence it isn't a notable crime by WP standards. The media & society in general doesn't care much about men, unless they're famous. Likewise with missing person cases - imagine if Suzy Lamplugh & Claudia Lawrence had been Steve Lamplugh & Carl Lawrence - their disappearances would have been covered only by the local media, for a very brief period, then quickly forgotten about. Jim Michael (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You appear not to understand that the standard under which we judge WP:NCRIME is whether WP:SIGCOV exists. A crime can attract the attention of journalists, academics, true crime authors, documentary film makers for a wide range of reasons. We keep crime articles where sources support notability. We do not ask why INDEPTH, and ONGOING coverage exist. We ask whether they exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't specifically referring to Germany. The comment from Jim Michael to which I was replying referred to a UK example which I gave. In general I'm doubtful of the likelihood of finding many references in the media stating that the media is biased, because, well... Deb (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
on-topic: The WP:NOTNEWS guideline give the following examples: routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.. This not league football. Per WP:SIGCOV, this incident has received international coverage is therefore presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. The guideline is quite clear, editors should presume this topic is suitable for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bild is clearly not a reliable source. It's the equivalent of the UK tabloid, The Sun, which we would never use as a source in this encyclopedia. Please find an alternative. Deb (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]