Talk:2021 Auckland supermarket stabbing

Category

Would being ISIS-inspired warrant adding Category:ISIL terrorist incidents, or would there need to be an official affiliation for that? --Pokelova (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

He was merely a sympathiser, not acting on their direction. WWGB (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Background - level 4

We probably should try to find a source which mentions, in relation to this incident, that Auckland was in level 4 lockdown restrictions at the time. Would likely have to be a non NZ source since not likely something an NZ source would bother to mention. I think at first, we can just add a source mention of this and a wikilink to the article COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand#Alert level system Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the knife attack? WWGB (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC) I see now that the lockdown had an impact on the surveillance, as the scarcity of shoppers meant that the police could not follow "S" as closely as they might have wanted. So, yes. the lockdown status should be included in the article. WWGB (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Most of this is OR so I'm not suggesting we add it but the attack was carried out in a supermarket operating under level 4 restrictions. This means there were limited number of people allowed in store, and everyone is supposed to try to remain 2 metres distance from other shoppers. For the non OR part, the police have now commented that level 4 restrictions affected their surveillance as they could not follow the suspect as closely as they normally would without arousing suspicion, indeed they didn't even enter the supermarket. Back to the OR part, while level 4 has done odd things with people's shopping habits, and 1430 on a weekday isn't an extremely busy time that generally starts later at 1500-1530 from people visiting after school, there's a fair chance the number of people in store was affected by level 4 restrictions. The supermarket was in a shopping mall, besides the supermarket, it's likely the only stores open were the 3 pharmacies. While the attack was resolved fairly fast which police confident there was no further treat, I think we can be sure it would have always been evacuated, Evacuating a busy shopping mall is different from evacuating a fairly empty one. As a minor point, even the ambulances (and other police) attending were probably affected by level 4 restrictions as even with sirens they can be delayed by busy streets. Nil Einne (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) On the evacuation point, especially in a case like this where there's a fair chance people would have been trying to leave themselves after rumours spread of an attack or shooting before mall staff started to evacuate. Also any "revenge" attack is in the short term more difficult since mosques etc are closed. (There are other extremely minor points like the different effect of the attack and closure of streets, and public's attention from people stuck at home, but also effect of an attack like this on staff at other stores and the public on people already on edge.) Note for those unaware, even in the post COVID-19 world significant restrictions besides international travel are not normal in NZ like they may be in some other countries, it's maybe been in ~13 weeks out of the past 78, with an additional ~10 weeks of fairly limited restrictions. But restrictions such as they exist have varied so widely around the world that I think it's reasonable to expect readers even now won't necessarily understand their effect, let alone 5-10 years from now. Hence my recommendation of a link if other sources commented on it, even if the police hadn't said anything. (Actually for the reasons I mentioned this has probably affected Kiwis more than many in the developed world, since from what I've seen I think many don't really appreciate what these restrictions have been like elsewhere, since for a lot of time they have been far less.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to 2021 Auckland supermarket stabbing.

The !votes split exactly evening (ignoring Carptrash, who appears to have intended to comment in a different section). However, many editors on both sides have expressed that they would be happy with 2021 Auckland supermarket stabbing (or stabbings, but only one editor expressed a strong preference for the plural). Only 2 out of 12 participating editors prefer keeping the current name to that option and other alternatives have negligible support. Accordingly I find a consensus to move to 2021 Auckland supermarket stabbing. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

---

2021 Auckland Countdown stabbing → 2021 Auckland stabbing – There's only been one notable stabbing in Auckland in 2021, and so no need to have the supermarket name in the article title. Proposed title is more concise, and so better in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Shop name is unnecessary. WWGB (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Countdown is unnecessary & the vast majority of people outside NZ don't know it's the name of a supermarket chain. Jim Michael (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: There is precedent for both articles simply named for the city and articles named for more specific locations. There clearly needs to be a wider discussion about policy here. --Pokelova (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose As with 2021 Dunedin Countdown stabbing and 1990 Auckland Jewish daycare stabbing it describes what it is, the other is too general. Imagine just seeing '1990 Auckland stabbing' instead. There may be only one notable event, but there might be dozens? of stabbings leading to injury a year in Auckland. That said I would prefer better, there is something cryptic in all these titles, I would like to see words like 'attack' or 'terrorism' when warranted in Wiki voice, but it seems that is not Wikipedia best practice and I can see why that might be. To be hyperbolic, only to help others understand my point 1997 Paris car crash. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy with '2021 Auckland supermarket stabbings' as below, would support change to Dunedin page as well. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

We may want to drop the s off stabbings other wise it reads like a list page or implies a trend. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Was wondering what on earth you meant about "1997 Paris car crash"?? Then I clicked on it.... ohhhhh, I get what you mean! Very good point. The current page name is waaaaaay more informative than if it was called "1997 Paris car crash", even though that was an exceptionally famous incident. Arguably THE MOST FAMOUS ever car crash in history. Mathmo ^Talk 05:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a very different situation - Diana was world famous when she was killed. No-one in this incident was well-known & the supermarket chain is known only in NZ. Countdown is a bizarre name for a supermarket chain & the vast majority of people outside NZ don't know that it is. Jim Michael (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not know the right words when I wrote that, hence the hyperbole, but I would now say that all suggestions are 'burying the lead'. However, that is not what we are talking about, are we all agreed that '2021 Auckland supermarket stabbing' is at least better? Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

That's better than the current name, but still too long. Auckland supermarket stabbing would be better. Jim Michael (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, I am coming around to it. Seems to be a bit of a mix of dates, no dates in Stabbing_as_a_terrorist_tactic (FYI their titles have been shorted in the list to remove dates). Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support - but rename as "2021 Auckland supermarket stabbings" instead. There's no need to name the specific brand of supermarket (especially as it is unknown outside New Zealand). But "supermarket" should remain, to clarify the location as being in a specific place (rather than just 'somewhere' in Auckland). Also, more than one person was stabbed, so it should be "stabbings", not "stabbing". PatricKiwi (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The shop name, or at least its type, is necessary to be consistent with the 2021 Dunedin Countdown stabbing and is precise. Also, both articles should be named the same way as the supermarket chain has been the victim of 2 stabbing attacks. If you want to remove the supermarket name then replace it with supermarket, as this is still precise, but the same change should also be applied to the Dunedin event. The various media sources are calling this event the Auckland Countdown or Auckland supermarket stabbing, (or shooting) to describe this event. If you are seeking a shorter common name, I would be happy with New Lynn stabbing, which is is still precise, but more obscure. New Zealand Police started off calling this event by the distinctly neutral name of New Lynn incident and have continued in that vein, but that is a bit under-stated. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Media sources outside NZ aren't using Countdown or New Lynn in their titles. Why use a name that the vast majority of people haven't heard of? Over 99.9% of people don't live in NZ. 2021 Dunedin Countdown stabbing should also be renamed. Jim Michael (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Ambigious as well, with "Countdown" having multiple meanings. Sounds like someone who went crazy during a game show, or its bastardised spin-off. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support but as 2021 Auckland supermarket stabbing (without s) as middle way to those who support and oppose the proposed title. I agree that supermarket "Countdown" branding should be removed due to ambigousity meaning, but "Supermarket" should remain. 36.77.95.92 (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons gave by Dushan Jugum, although would accept a compromise of swapping out "Countdown" for "supermarket". Mathmo ^Talk 05:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• I have decided to Oppose as there are simply too many other articles about violent incidents named for the specific businesses they took part in, therefore singling this one out doesn't make sense. --Pokelova (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose name is precise and is consistent with the 2021 Dunedin Countdown stabbing and 1990 Auckland Jewish daycare stabbing the new name is too general per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose These are good as separate articles. There is overlap in the content but not that much. Carptrash (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

did you place this in the wrong place? Think you meant to put it here: Talk:2021_Auckland_Countdown_stabbing#Merger_of_Ahamed_Samsudeen_into_this_article Mathmo ^Talk 23:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral: Not sure it really matters that much, but I thought the page would be better to be referred to as 2021 Auckland Supermarket Terrorist Attack or something similar. Should represent the serious nature of the incident. LukeChandlerNZ (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to try and reach a general consensus here. We have 7 against, 5 for and 1 neutral. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to progress? LukeChandlerNZ (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest 2021 Auckland knife attack. It's not the most common format for this type of things, but there are plenty of precedents, e.g. 2020 Dresden knife attack, 2018 Paris knife attack, 2018 Perm knife attack, 2017 Hamburg knife attack, 2016 Munich knife attack. Nurg (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• • That's a better option, support that for both this and the Dunedin article.  Nixinova   T   C   00:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I like that one too. Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Does an administrator come in at some point and save us from ourselves? I feel that most of us support a change and don't like the word Countdown (not meaning to ignore anyone). But we don't agree on much else. I would hate for us to settle for the old name simply because we can't agree on a new one. How does this normally work? A straw poll? Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons given by Dushan Jugum comparing with 1990 Auckland Jewish daycare stabbing and other examples. The name is informative and will assist people searching for this article. While "Countdown" might not be known as a supermarket brand outside of New Zealand, I suspect that in future years this article will mainly be used by New Zealanders researching the history of their own county. Using 2021 Auckland supermarket stabbings (or perhaps that should be "stabbing") would also be acceptable and might be the best compromise solution. Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 06:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is a routinely unarmed police force carrying of firearms not relevant?

Nixinova (talk · contribs) removed the section I added about Police carriage of firearms with the comment that it was irrelevant. I disagree. Before putting the section back I want to understand why it was considered irrelevant. I don't know if this comes from a non-NZ assumption that police are armed but the New Zealand Police are a routinely unarmed force and there is considerable community concern to them being armed. The mere arming of Police is often a newsworthy event in New Zealand. In this incident, Police did not initially respond to this incident knowing an armed attack was taking place. Police were already there and following the attacker while he went shopping. An armed monitoring team is not the norm for New Zealand Police. The reasons why the monitoring team felt it necessary to carry firearms needs explaining, along with why the individual was being monitored, who the STG are and what they do. No doubt the IPCA will do a through job analyzing this need to carry firearms while monitoring this person. So why is the proactive carriage of firearms by police not relevant to this incident and the prompt shooting of the attacker? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The section was talking about police in general. It did mention 'Armed Offenders Squad' and 'Special Tactics Group' but didn't say whether these were relevant to the situation. The first sentence of the incident (trailed by surveillance’s is and strategic tactical teams) sections explains it fine.  Nixinova   T   C   03:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary. Clearly, the attacker was being followed by armed police. Whether other NZ police are unarmed is irrelevant. WWGB (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It is very very relevant, as they demonstrate the unusual nature of this terrorist in New Zealand, and the very imminent threat they believed he posed. Mathmo ^Talk 00:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Merger of Ahamed Samsudeen into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was that 10 people opposed the merge, while 3 people voted in support. The page should not be merged. LukeChandlerNZ (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Ahamed Samsudeen into 2021 Auckland Countdown stabbing. Samsudeen's only claim to notability is this attack and is therefore an example of WP:ONEEVENT. The attack is not significant - no fatalities other than the perpetrator. Brenton Tarrant murdered 51 people but doesn't have a separate article. All of the content in Ahamed Samsudeen can easily be accommodated into the 2021 Auckland Countdown stabbing article, just like Christchurch mosque shootings has extensive content on Tarrant.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support : The attacker is a one-time event his history is better as part of the 2021 Auckland Countdown stabbing. - UmdP 16:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose : I wouldn't be so sure - his actions since his arrival to New Zealand are currently causing waves of reflection among the public, government, and law officials. I'd personally say his past history with the law, his refugee status being retained and, especially, his inability to be deported due to his planning of a terrorist attack due to oversights in NZ law are significant, and this significance may only rise in the coming weeks. I'd leave the article up for a little while, and reflect on its status a little later :) Mrsmiis (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

One day, the page may be many times longer. When that occurs we can split it, maybe into 'crime' and 'political repercussions', if what you say is true then that would be a more natural split. We could argue over what pages we might need in a year or two or we could talk about what we need now WP:CRYSTAL. In 2022 I will accept your 'I told you so' with good humor. Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: The article is full of details, too much long to merge in to another article. Gianluigi02 (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at Christchurch mosque shootings, we got room for everything that needs to be there. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally different example, for various reasons, one key reason for instance being that Brenton Tarrant was never ever mentioned in the media (either directly or censored) prior to that specific event. Mathmo ^Talk 12:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support : We have a rule for this exact situation WP:CRIME, any disagreements can be argued on that talk page, or at least explaining how it could not apply. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:CRIME is not applicable, because Ahamed was already in the news for trials and events other than the 2021 Auckland Countdown stabbing. Mathmo ^Talk 12:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed vote. Happy in was in the news at least before stabbing. Still think practically one page is best, for what that is worth. Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support : The notability of this person is only established via the 2021 Auckland Countdown stabbing attack. Guidance given at WP:ONEEVENT indicates that in this case, the event should be the subject of the article, and separate articles should not be created for the event and the person.Marshelec (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed my vote. As I reflect on this, I have some suggestions in the comment below.Marshelec (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: would be bulky to merge the two together, and (unlike the Christchurch terrorist, this situation is totally different) there is a lot of background history specific to the terrorist beyond simply the terrorist attack this month. As he has been in the news it seems for *years*. Mathmo ^Talk 23:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I am missing the news refs on him from before September 2021 and so is his page?, what are they? Also we know so much more about Tarrant, travels, manifesto, trial etc etc. Also 791+894 words in these two pages and CHCH shooting is 8354 words. If one day this page increases ~seven fold in length, we can talk about this. Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

He was discussed lots and lots before September, but his name was censored (only became uncensored after his death), thus it is only now in September 2021 that the dots are connected that this is the same person. That is why. Mathmo ^Talk 12:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines for article size are given here: Wikipedia:Article size. Articles with "readable prose" size up to 40 kB are considered acceptable and do not require splitting. At the time of writing, the "readable prose" size of the two articles is: 5432 B for the 2021 Auckland Countdown stabbing article, and 4854 B for Ahamed Samsudeen. Therefore, even if they were combined with no reduction based on duplication, the total would still be less than a quarter of the 40 kB threshold in the guidance. Merging would be likely to reduce the total, once duplication is eliminated. Therefore, there is no persuasive argument for retaining two articles based on article size.Marshelec (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Considering that we're merely only days into the freshly new creation of these articles, it is not unreasonable to predict possible future growth of the articles in the near term. Plus I don't believe we should have articles pushing up right to the edge of the length limits, they should be kept as manageable chunks long before then. Mathmo ^Talk 12:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support for reasons stated above. --Pokelova (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: On the grounds that this is not a single event. There are several things being reported on now about this person and more will come in the future. The trouble is the various different events are only now being reported on after name suppression has been lifted about the perpetrator, after his death. Wikipedia has articles about perpetrators of crime who are notable for a single crime and are subsequently executed. In this case the perpetrator's criminal act, the stabbing, and his death from being shot by undercover police are separated by perhaps a minute, not years. But he is also notable, now for not being able to be detained under existing New Zealand law and the reporting today now seems to be asking how can this have happened. Also WP:1E advises "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The next sentence reads "The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category". Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

That merely gives an exemplar of who fits into that category. I am saying a terrorist who attempts to murder seven people and has to be shot by Police to prevent him attacking more people, also fits the category to have a separate article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Cameron, you're right in how this is not a single event. And you raise a good point, that even if this was just a single event (which it is not), then arguably it is still one of such large significance (that he also played such a large role in) that it is still justifiable for them to be two separate articles. Mathmo ^Talk 12:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

A stabbing where none of the victims dies is not highly significant. There are probably thousands of the these every single day around the world.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Unsure, leaning toward support - I'd like to know if Samsudeen and his prior arrests and trials were covered extensively by New Zealand media at the time they were happening, and not after the attack occurred. (I know Samsudeen would likely not be named then due to New Zealand law, but if details match up in the articles, then I think it technically counts.) If so, then I'd reconsider and change my vote to a concrete oppose, because WP:ONEEVENT would not apply in that case. Otherwise, I don't see how a merge would substantially hurt either article, given Marshelec's argument regarding WP:SIZE. Love of Corey (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I can find 2 media reports from May 2021 that covered an earlier trial while under name suppression that are linked from a recent backgrounder news article: Owen, Catrin (4 September 2021). "Auckland terror attack: Ahamed Samsudeen, the man behind Isis-inspired stabbings". Stuff. Retrieved 6 September 2021. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Owen, Catrin (19 May 2021). "Man repeatedly accessed Isis terror material before buying knife, Crown says". Stuff. Retrieved 6 September 2021.
    • Owen, Catrin (20 May 2021). "Graphic video played to jury in trial of man accused of possessing Isis propaganda". Stuff. Retrieved 6 September 2021.
  • Also there is: Hurley, Sam; Savage, Jared (16 August 2021). "Why Isis supporter who allegedly planned 'lone wolf' attack in Auckland could not be charged as a terrorist". NZ Herald. Retrieved 6 September 2021. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

What about the arrests and trials that happened before 2021? Or his seeking refugee status? Anything on those? Love of Corey (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the question is: What is considered an "Event"? And what is considered a "Report"? An Event occurs at one point in time and in the case of this article it is the stabbing that is notable. However, the media Reports about the stabbing event are also, now, reporting on a whole lot of other events that happened earlier but could not be reported on because of court suppression orders. You are seeing those Reports being made now, but they relate to Events from as early as 2011. Knowing what we know now we could search for earlier Reports that were made at the time but I suspect it will be difficult to find them. However, there is no need to do this because the reports about those earlier events are being made now. Additionally, there is an IPCA report that will be made about the Police shooting the attacker. This is an additional event because while it happened at the same place it happened at a different time (a minute later) and the IPCA will need to investigate if that shooting was a justifiable homicide by the Police. Had the Police shooting happened without the stabbing it would have been a separately notable event. This is why I am saying this situation is not one event. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there were no reports before 2021 or not (I haven't double checked), we've seen more than enough evidences of much media reporting prior to this event. If it was early 2021 or late 2020 or whatever, it doesn't make any real difference. And due to government censorship, it is rather tricky to dig up older reporting of him, it is quite possible there were media reports being made of him back in the mid 2010's but we can't find it due to the censorship of his name. Mathmo ^Talk 12:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: I created this article, and from great work from the Wikipedia community it has turned into very in-depth article. I have recently requested all of the terrorists court files, and will have these uploaded online if successful. This may lead to a significantly more in-depth article. It should not be merged with the stabbing event. Just as a note, the Christchurch Terrorist does not have his own page because he's irrelevant, and this terrorist has a lengthy legal background. LukeChandlerNZ (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  What am I missing User:LukeChandlerNZ. What is one thing about him that is encyclopedic and should not also go on the stabbing page? If what you find is as great as you hope it should go on that page too.Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

So a white terrorist who murdered 51 people is irrelevant but a brown terrorist who killed no-one is relevant just because he has lengthy (one trial) legal background?--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Not at all User:Obi2canibe, the Auckland terrorist has a significant background with the court system (Samsudeen was notable through sources prior to his attack, due to name suppression, these couldn't be published, now this has been lifted, it can be). The Christchurch terrorist was an irrelevant degenerate with no priors committing one event. Do not make this a race issue.LukeChandlerNZ (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is becoming evident that Samsudeen was notable through sources prior to his attack. WWGB (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  Do you mean notable in a Wikipedia way? Can you expand on that. Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he satisfied WP:GNG prior to the supermarket attack so WP:ONEEVENT no longer applies to him. WWGB (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I am very slowly moving. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Even as more info emerges and the content grows, it will still be able to be accommodated in one article. If the man's life prior to the attack really is notable enough for an article on him, then do the merge the other way. Nurg (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

You think this terrorist attack at Countdown is so insignificant that it doesn't deserve it's own page and instead should only be a subsection part Ahamed's page?? Mathmo ^Talk 12:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the attack is insignificant but I don't think the man and the attack are so significant that two articles are required. I don't think the attack should necessarily be just "a subsection". Maybe it would be several sections – whatever it takes. But, yes, it looks like it could be just part of the man's article. So, Merge the other way. Nurg (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I would also ask if you think proposed law changes and information about the victims are best put on his page?Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be better for this article to be merged into the man's article, as there is quite a bit of content beyond the attack itself. Nurg (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose : I believe it is not necessary for it to be merged into another page. Better off just leaving it as is instead of merging it. - NZDF1985 8:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Mind clarifying specifically why you think it's unnecessary? Love of Corey (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The terrorist is separately notable under WP:GNG. If anything, this article should be merged into his page, but I think the stabbing event is itself notable. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it makes the slightest sense whatsoever to include this entire page within Ahamed's page. Kiwis will likely look back upon this event as the 2nd most notable event of the entire year (after covid of course!). Or at least, I hope nothing worse happens in 2021!! Thus the only option that sensible remains, is that they stay as two separate pages. Mathmo ^Talk 12:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

More pages does not equal more importance see the pop culture side of Wikipedia. Ok, I don't want to start that argument, but I have no interest in making more pages for the Christchurch Shooting and Alpine fault to show their relative 'importance'. User:Mathmo, what encyclopedic information should go on his page that should not also go on the stabbing page? Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd say even if you removed from history that day's incident, then Ahemed would still meet WP:GNG. Mathmo ^Talk 06:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Yes if the only news that day was his name being released, not the stabbing, there would still be a page for him and I would not be trying to delete it. Also the stabbing is kind of a big deal, we have a page for the Dunedin stabbing and that does not have the terrorist motive, which, to the great delight of terrorists, makes it even more worthy of note. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose All the notable assassins although notable for that event only have individual articles (John Wilkes Booth re Lincoln, 1865; Carl Weiss re Huey Long, 1935; & for Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 not just Gavrilo Princip but the other five as well. Too much on ... to fit in an article on the 2021 attack! Hugo999 (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

In those cases the victims were all notable therefore the perpetrator would meet notability under WP:CRIME. That is not the case with this article.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The perpetrator has commited more crimes in 2018. For that reason I believe that the current article should be kept. Spitzfizzer (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other articles that warrant consideration

There are important issues arising from background to the attack that have relevance for other articles. I see that Terrorism in New Zealand has been updated to include reference to the attack, but there will be a need for updates to Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. Updates to one or both of these articles could refer to the previously identified deficiency in the Terrorism Suppression Act with regard to planning an attack, and the inability of the government to revoke refugee status (and enable deportation).Marshelec (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Insufficient explanation of deletion

User:WWGB I think that deleting information from this page and moving to one under discussion for merger to this page is needlessly provocative. Also if we decide to keep both pages there will be a great deal of overlap, it is not an either/or choice. You need to explain why you are removing referenced relevant info, not just that it would be better somewhere else in Wikipedia. It is just got a bad look, imagine if I start deleting info off the Samsudeen page and putting it on this one. Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The Stabbing article only features Sansudeen's actions on the day. Content about his refugee status, radicalisation and crime history are all featured in his article Ahamed Samsudeen. His rehabilitation after prison is also a matter for that page. Even the author of that content thanked me for moving it. You seem to be the lone wolf here. WWGB (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that some reference to the events leading up to the terrorist attack and the after math is worthwhile being kept in for the wider context of the day's events. Mathmo ^Talk 06:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Lets work together on this, I asked twice in the discussion if there was anything that should be on the Samsudeen page that could not go in the Stabbing page. You are now suggesting that his "refugee status, radicalisation and crime history...rehabilitation" fit the bill. I think removing that context from the stabbing page would make it worse. It is also that line of thinking that possibly led to the stabbing only getting a one sentence mention on his page, until recently. I also think it is a good thing we are talking about it, as it represents a big change to this page and possibly many others if implemented. If I may be so bold it seems both pages will be kept (not what i want) if so we will need detailed (yet summarized) information about his past and motives on this page. Right now both pages are starting and do not really cover anything in enough detail, we can trim them later if needed. Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)