Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Abdisamad Sheikh-Hussein

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. Discounting Govindaharihari's WP:WAX comment, there seems to be consensus that this is a relatively routine crime with little lasting significance, and therefore more of a news item. Sandstein 21:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Abdisamad Sheikh-Hussein

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An insane man drives over a person. Aden's mother Hawo Abdullahi of Minneapolis, said her son also was Muslim and, like the victim, was Somali.She confirms he was a Muslim not a christian and it is not a hate crime. [1] ,[2]This article is violation of General notablity guildline and notnews guildline routine everyday murder or accident by an insane person does not deserve an article.Girdlast888 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — Girdlast888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCRIME If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable - the outcome of the investigation/trial (sane/insane, hate/no-hate, etc.) - has little to do with notability. What makes an event notable - is coverage. In this case - we have copious coverage from around the 2014 event itself (in top-notch sources - including NYT for instance). We also have WP:LASTING coverage various news outlets - [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9]. Books - [10] [11] [12]. Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it should be relevant to the outcome, but per ABC news in Oct 2016 - [13] The driver of the SUV, Ahmed H. Aden, 34, a Somali Christian truck driver, later pleaded guilty to murder. - nom is incorrect in stating insanity and Muslim faith of the attack.Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His Muslim faith is claimed by his mother and I think that is reliable and mentioned in multiple sources. Aden's mother, Hawo Abdullahi of Minneapolis, said her son also was Muslim and, like the victim, was Somali.[14], [15] ,[16] Aden's mother, Hawo Abdullahi of Minneapolis, said through an interpreter that her Somali son is Muslim [17],[18] I am not well versed with Wikipedia policies as I am new but an ordinary murder is not notable thousands of such murders including those mentioned in leading newspapers daily and which are covered in the media.Girdlast888 (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
His mother apparently said this close to the incident. Later sources dot repeat this claim. People can convert. In any event the perp's faith is irrelevant to notability.Icewhiz (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Note - the mother of a suspect is usually not considered a RS, and is typically viewed as highly biased in favor of the suspect.Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Icewhiz I have no comment on notability yet but please do not try to use namedrops and passing mentions as proof of "lasting coverage". Literally, all those sources briefly mention the incident and are about another more notable subject or incident. Of course, there was coverage soon after the killing -- that fits nicely into WP:NOTNEWS. Regardless, I am sure this article will be kept because enough editors will take your listing here at face value rather than actually evaluate their lack of depth.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This case does not seem to pass our notability guidelines. It is not even clear if it was a hate crime. If it was, one should think about creating a more general page, i.e. Anti-Muslim violence in the United states. That might be valid page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Considering that the claims that the perpetrator of the crime was Muslim and not Chrisitan according to his own family members, most of the categorizing is flawed, and reflects the fact this was a rushed to assumption news story advanced to back a particular narrative, one that proved false and we should not continue to advance in a reliable encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry but the misleading "coverage" listed here, as well as the immediate and short-lived news surrounding this subject does not convince me. The notability criteria for events specifies that reports -- even if they are widespread -- on their own are not enough to establish notability. Historical and/or societal significance are indicators. Some editors may argue that those cannot be established with a recent news event and I can argue that the article shouldn't be created in the first place if notability is that questionable. I wish the criteria for events could be applied more accurately for terrorism-related AFDs but for now I will worry about this individual incident and hope editors come to the proper conclusion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Substantive coverage that has continued for years meets WP:NCRIME. Article is in need of expansion, updating.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC) see new iVote below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note coverage of politicization of this case: Kansas GOP Criticized for Controversial ISIS-Themed Flier.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is about the killing of one Somali American by another. It seems to have been suspected as a hate-crime, but this seems doubtful. The issues are whether the conversion to Christianity was genuine and the culprit's vanity. It sounds as if this was a case that attracted much press attention; if so, it should be kept as a notorious case. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCRIME and the coverage is all news reports, i.e. WP:PRIMARY. This does not meet the criteria for WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:BLP for both the victim and the perpetrator; the event itself is not notable as of now and this appears to a sad but routine thing. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid deletion rationale: BLP does not protect convicted murderers, or their dead victims. (Also, Deliberately ramming an SUV into a pedestrian is not "routine.")E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is plenty of similar stuff kept and well supported on this wiki. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So keep because other stuff that doesn't belong already exists?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, better than delete, WP:I don't like it 23:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

*Delete I came back to source, expand the brief, confusing article, and found that a more careful look at sources changed my opinion. After the brief flurry of coverage caused by the impression that a murder-by-vehicle-ramming by a perp with anti-Islam bumper-stickers on his vehicle who deliberately ran over Muslim must be an anti-Muslim hate crime, there really has been very little coverage. Presumably because it turned out not to be a hate crime. Fails WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with apologies to editors whose patience I am trying, I have been trying to get this right. Because the coverage was international at the time of this vehicle-ramming attack; because it was a deliberate attack on persons leaving a Muslim house of prayer by a perp whose anti-Islam views were written all over his SUV (whether perp was Christian or Muslim;) an dbecause of ongoing coverage like this reported 2017 article 3 Years, 5 Horrific Hate-Crime Killings In The Kansas City Area, this murder-by-vehicle meets WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Floating an idea Clearly, the brief flurry of coverage was generated by the assumption that this was a hate crime. We seem to run this drill a lot. For example, we have Killing of Nabra Hassanen. They cannot be merged to our List of Islamophobic incidents. Which makes me wonder whether we could use a List of crimes initially mistaken for hate crimes. Not merely as a redirect target, but because these allegations tend to resurface, so providing a few facts about incidents that have attracted media attention before turning out not to be hate crimes might be useful. opinions? E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perp was convicted for murder here. I do not see sources for this alleged mistaken classification -- those cĺaiming this here are claiming this from stuff the perp's mother said close to the event - and while RS reported what the mother said, she is not RS. Regardless this does not affect notability which per NCRIME is determined by coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheGracefulSlick. Such news coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and we can't have stand-alone articles based on this. Störm (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2017 (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.