Talk:Murder of Kim Wall

Removing merge template

Proposal to merge the article into UC3 Nautilus removed as explained on Talk:UC3 Nautilus#Kim Wall.

Best regards -- Neozoon 13:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The lead

From the lead:

disappeared in a submarine

Disappeared after being last seen in a submarine?

She was later found dead prompting a murder investigation

As the murder investigtion started about 12 days before she (the torso) was found dead, it's not accurate to say the find prompted the investigation.--Nø (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Layout adjustment proposal

Proposal to include brief biographical information on both Wall and Madsen in the "background" section.

Best, Sebastian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3021:1A00:F680:D056:9D2:329D:D6DE (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary we should follow the layout of Disappearance of Natalee Holloway as that is a featured article (highest quality article here on Wikipedia). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverted move to "Disappearance of Kim Wall"

I think this is not a proper way to rename the article from an article about a person into an article about the subpart of "disappearance".

Kim Wall was a person and an awardwinning journalist. All the other wikipedia-articles about her in other languages (german, danish and norwegian language) are about the person, also dealing with the topic of the crime.

Same for Wikidata item Kim Wall (Q36519983)[1], which is linked with the article, its about the person not the crime. I will rename the article back to Kim Wall (journalist).

Best regards -- Neozoon 18:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Neozoon: She is most notable for her disappearance though as demonstrated by the reliable sources. We should go by WP:COMMONNAME, I know there is WP:OSE but as I said above we have Disappearance of Natalee Holloway which is a featured article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest simply waiting and let current editing develop the article(s) before making further title changes. Events are occurring these days, changing the content - mostly about her death, but also about her life. Articles about women are commonly misjudged as "Not notable". As seen in the other languages, additional sources are available; there seems to be enough material online to warrant an article about her life. There is a big overlap between the three articles, and a separate article may be created at some point. TGCP (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway was absolutely non-notable except for her disappearance. Wall was a journalist published in The Guardian, New York Times, Harper's Magazine, Time, The Atlantic and South China Morning Post among other publications. --85.194.2.168 (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

There are articles specific dealing with this topic of her being special as journalist on CNN, and BBC, I think that settles it from my point of view. : "Friends pay tribute to Kim Wall: 'She is more than what happened to her'" [2] and BBC "Kim Wall: An ‘exceptional’ journalist remembered" [3] Best regards -- Neozoon 16:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that her life is notable well beyond her death, which is why the current state of her infobox especially troubles me. ~Eliz81^(C) 22:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

For expansion of the article, here are some links about her life, and collections of some of her articles: South China Morning Post, 1, 2 3 TGCP (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems like an obvious WP:BLP1E issue. I'm going to start an RM unless someone can explain how BLP1E doesn't apply. NickCT (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: This is what I have been saying, I still think that sadly she is most notable for this one event. There is nothing wrong with placing her accomplishments into the section about her life. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I was not sure about the creation of any Wikipedia article on these events this soon after the events' occurrence, because we may not have given enough time for the "breaking news" coverage to subside and for "significant" coverage to take place. Now that these articles have been created, it makes little sense to delete them, however. Given that this article is written very much like a (sufficiently sourced) biography, I think we're looking down the route of a potential merger and/or redirect, rather than an RM. If we were to move it, the article would be considered unfocused (as it currently focuses on Wall as a whole, rather than just her disappearance/death) and the biographical detail may have to be condensed or removed, which I'm not sure would be favourable either. We don't have a crystal ball, so we don't know if, over time, all three topics (Wall, Madsen and the submarine) will become individually notable and each merit a standalone article by means of independent significant coverage. Of course, there should be just one article per notable topic, and if all three articles do not become independently notable, the non-notable one(s) should be merged/redirected to just one standalone article. Linguist¹1¹ 01:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Linguist111: - Thanks for weighing in. I see a merge or redirect as effectively the same thing as an RM, because any of those solutions would resolve the WP:BLP1E issue. Any thoughts on what we ought to merge/redirect to?

re "will become individually notable" - Well it seems clear that Wall wasn't notable before her death (why else would she not have a WP article?). Has anyone gone back to see if she'd meet notability criteria prior to her death? NickCT (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Alas, any BLP policy is hardly applicable in this case.--Nø (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nø: - WP:BLP1E is sorta a copy of WP:1E which does apply. NickCT (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

- Ok. Given there don't seem to be any sustained objections to a RM, I'm going to work one up. NickCT (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

No I object to seeing this award Winning journalist as only interesting because of the way her life ended. This is also not the outcome of the discussion above. There is room for an article on the person of Kim Wall as journalist in Wikipedia and there is room for the Inventor next to an article about the submarine. If a possible case is better described in the Peter Madsen article or a seperate article this is to be seen when the findings are to be published. For the time beeing there is no need to change the situation of the "Kim Wall (journalist)" article from my point of view. Best regards -- Neozoon 23:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Neozoon: - WP doesn't have articles on people because they are interesting. Plenty of interesting folk don't have and shouldn't get WP articles. It has articles on people b/c they are notable. NickCT (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: In reply to your response to me, I did a Google search for Wall with Google's date filter set to exclude results from 11 August (the day she was reported missing) onwards, and didn't find anything in the news section and very little (just author profiles on the newspapers and blogs she wrote for) in the main Google search section. There is one source present in the article dated earlier than 11 August 2017, not a profile and not something written by Wall herself - this one from Zeitenspiegel, giving a mention to her winning its Hansel Mieth Prize. If the Hansel Mieth Prize is a significant award, then Wall meets point 1 of WP:ANYBIO. Peter Madsen and UC3 Nautilus's articles were created several years ago and were referenced before Wall died ([4][5]). I haven't thoroughly checked Google for results for them, but I think the submarine is likely to be independently notable as its article had more sources at the time (also two days ago an IP wrote on UC3N's talk page that a documentary about it aired in 2009). If Madsen is found to not be independently notable, his article should be merged into the submarine's IMO. I think that by having a standalone article substantially dedicated to Wall's death, which only happened very recently and is still in its breaking stage, we may have completely jumped the gun. If Wall is not independently notable, her article should be merged into the submarine's as well, and into Madsen's unless he is not independently notable either. But this is just my opinion and I think a merge discussion or AfD should take place to generate consensus on this. I agree with what you said above about topics having to be notable and that being "interesting" is not on its own a justification for keeping an article, as different people have different interests and per WP:INTERESTING. Linguist^unEins^uno 11:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Knowledgekid87. She is not WP:NOTABLE as a journalist at all; the only reason she is notable is her death/possible murder. Before her death she was an obscure freelance journalist in spe; hardly anyone in Scandinavia had heard about her and there are no third party sources discussing her in any other context than her death. Hence an article about her death/disappearance/murder is the most appropriate solution. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

On "body discovered" in the infobox

So I think this is a general problem for the biographies infobox, because it's kinda gross to highlight facts like 'body discovered' for an article that is ostensibly about a person's life, but it's especially gross here where the details on a respected investigative journalist's life and work are scant. The grisly details would be better highlighted in an article specifically about her murder/disappearance. Any chance we could hide those infobox fields from public display? ~Eliz81^(C) 20:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Information being "gross" or degrading is not an automatic justification for removing it. Customarily in biographical infoboxes, the |died= parameter (with the date and place of death) is used, but we don't yet know which date she died on. The discovery of Wall's body was substantially covered by sources and therefore I think it is appropriate to include it in the article. Linguist¹1¹ 06:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

See #Requested move 6 September 2017
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think that this article has been created too soon, in anticipation of Wall and her death being notable, and we have not given enough time for the breaking news and planned coverage of ongoing proceedings to subside. I did a Google search for Wall with Google's date filter set to exclude results from 11 August (the day she was reported missing) onwards, and didn't find anything in the news section and very little (just author profiles on the newspapers and blogs she wrote for) in the main Google search section. There is one source present in the article dated earlier than 11 August 2017, not a profile and not something written by Wall herself - one from Zeitenspiegel giving a mention to her winning its Hansel Mieth Prize. I don't believe Wall or her death meet WP:GNG at the moment and therefore shouldn't have a standalone article. The submarine is likely to be independently notable because its article was created several years ago had more sources at the time (also a documentary about it aired in 2009). The description of her disappearance and death can be sufficiently covered there and so I propose this article be merged into UC3 Nautilus. LinguistunEinsuno 21:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC) @Linguist111: - Can we keep this discussion to the section below? I think different folks are proposing merges and other moves. I think think we can test for consensus for either of these options in a single discussion. NickCT (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Death of Kim Wall for the start. Merge discussion can happen later. No such user (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Kim Wall (journalist) → Death of Kim Wall – Per the discussion above; it is not evident that Kim Wall is independently notable outside of the event of her death. Consequently, this page may be a violation of WP:1E. This RM is intended to see if there is consensus to move or merge this article. NickCT (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Please put responses in the following format;

• Move - Clear violation of WP:1E. I_Like_to_move (talk) 00:25, 7 December 1941 (UTC)
• Merge to UC3 Nautilus - Let's merge! I_Like_to_merge (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Move or Merge to Nautilus - So many good choices! I_swing_both_ways (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - She seems notable enough for her own page to me. I_oppose (talk) 00:25, 5 September 1752 (UTC)

---

@Linguist111, Bjerrebæk, Neozoon, Knowledgekid87, Eliz81, TGCP, and Nø:

• Move or Merge - As nom. NickCT (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose of merge to submarine article. Neutral regarding naming of this article. I believe there is enough information and coverage about Kim Wall and her death to warrant its own article. If insufficient, than a better merge would be to Peter Madsen (inventor) article, since he had more to do with her death, mutilation, and discarding her body than the submarine did. 15zulu (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge to UC3 Nautilus per my statements above. That is where the events documented in this article took place. Since Wall's death was very recent and proceedings are ongoing, its notability is in question (cf. WP:BREAKING). Still the coverage given so far establishes that Wall's death is more notable than she is herself, so my second option is to support this move. Linguist^unEins^uno 14:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to Death of Kim Wall per nom. It's a clear case of a WP:1E; it is the death that is WP:NOTABLE, not her career as a virtually unknown, recently graduated, aspiring freelance journalist before her death. There are no third party sources that discuss her in any other context than her death. The most relevant comparison would be Murder of Meredith Kercher; we have an article about her murder that received worldwide coverage, but not a biographical article about her because she wasn't notable before or for any other reasons than her death. I believe her death is sufficiently notable to merit a stand-alone article (on the event, not a biographical one), so I don't think merging with UC3 Nautilus is appropriate; instead her death should be summarized in that article and discussed in more detail in a stand-alone article. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Should have own page, don't merge. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Rationale? Linguist^unEins^uno 12:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart and Linguist111: - Yeah. Rationale? You've created a number of "Disapperance of Person X" pages. Surely you understand WP:1E. Why shouldn't this page be "Death of Kim Wall"? NickCT (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category: 2017 deaths

This article is about a death in 2017, so why is the category CATEGORY: 2017 deaths being removed? Clearly, it is 2017 and a death. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That category is for articles about persons who died in 2017, not for articles about deaths of people. The Kim Wall (journalist) redirect already has the category. Linguist^unEins^uno 07:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

list of articles written by Kim Wall

I note that there is no list of the journalist Kim Wall`s reports, and suggest a list be compiled and included in this article and or a seperate article about her. The article does not do her justice. 126.243.99.240 (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Linguist^unEins^uno 11:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Many authors, writers, artists etc.etc. have a list of works attributed to them, so I guess it would`t be out-of-place if a competent wikipedian were to contribute one to Kim`s. Perhaps it is time to seperate the article concerning herself and her death, both of which are notable, seperately. 126.243.121.121 (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If Kim Wall has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of her, then she would presumably qualify for a separate article. But what we'd need is sources that talk in-depth about her life, her work etc., and don't just talk about her as the victim (WP:BIO1E). Most importantly, per WP:VICTIM and WP:CONTENTFORKING, a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Linguist^unEins^uno 11:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Date of murder

I recently changed the date of the murder to "10 or 11 August" (w. refs and matching info provided by authorities, i.e, just before midnight on 10 or just after midnight on 11). This was reverted back to the exact "10 August" based on this ref. The revert was clearly in good faith, but the basis for this exact date is questionable. As described in the ref, it is information provided by Madsen as he claims that Wall died on 10 Aug around 11.05pm (=20 minutes before a text message to his former wife at 11.25pm). This is the same man who claims he did not murder anyone; first that Wall was left alive on land, then that she died in an accident where she was hit in the head with a hatch cover and finally she died in an accident when inhaling exhaust gases. How information by Madsen can be considered reliable for anything in a BLP (incl. recently dead, WP:BDP) is unclear to me. RN1970 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Small clarification since an editor added another ref that says she boarded the submarine on 10 August — nobody disputes the day she boarded the submarine. The question is when she was murdered. RN1970 (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Translation of the name of the Swedish documentary

It seems that I am not the only one who has changed the translation of "Hon Som Ville Berätta" from "The Woman Who Wanted to Tell" to "She Who Wanted to Tell". This is quite understandable, since the verbatim translation of "Hon Som ..." is "She Who ..." (source: me, a native Swedish speaker). In the edit history, there are references (without links) to the English name of the documentary as (presumably) presented on the Swedish web site of SVT. I can't find any verification of that reference when I search the site. Also "she who wanted to tell" wins the Google contest against "the woman who wanted to tell", but the hits are few so the result is inconclusive at best. I watched the start and end of the documentary to see if I could find a reference to an English name, but I had no such luck.

I'd like to see some evidence that the "The Woman ..." translation has actually been used at some point by SVT or by the film makers themselves before I can let this go. It is quite possible that the title at some point was erroneously translated into "The Woman ..." which then became canon. If so, then it's a shame, because the wording of the title by the film makers is (obviously, imho) a stylistic and conscious choice. ChrisMarch72 (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Subtitled video, about 30 seconds in. Of course "she" is the correct translation of "hon", but SVT used a different English title. Linguist^unEins^uno 14:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the link and explanation. I can't believe I didn't check the subtitles... I still believe that the translation is wrong, but now it has been established and I digress. ChrisMarch72 (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A comment to roll back

Why is my addition irrelevant? It's not common known that he only appeal the sentence of life, but not his guilt, even though he plague "not guilty". It happens not very often that a convicted murderer claiming "not guilty" doesn't appeal the question of guilt, but only the length of the verdict.--Ramloser 19:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it should already be obvious from saying Madsen is to appeal his sentence that it is just the life sentence he is appealing and not the guilty verdict. Otherwise, we would just write "Madsen is to appeal his verdict". Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 22:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Murdered?

Little confused by the rationale (or lack thereof) of this edit.

Standard practice for murdered people is to say they were "murdered" or "killed" by someone in narrative voice. See Murder of John Lennon or Murder of Travis Alexander. The standard is usually whether someone has received a conviction which isn't being seriously disputed. It's not really for us to determine what a "reasonable" doubt is. NickCT (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

This is kind of tricky because in this case there was no confession, no witnesses etc. I actually did introduce a similar wording just after Madsen was convicted, but then Connor Behan made these changes [6][7][8]. Pinging Connor Behan for his opinion. Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 15:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I've just changed "died" to "was killed", because it's more specific and probably more neutral. It also flows more sensibly – "person A was killed and person B was then convicted of murder" is neutral and understandable while "person A was murdered and person B was then convicted of murder" states a point twice and may not be neutral. Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 15:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. As with my April and May edits, I don't think reasonable doubt is the right standard to use here. The only thing we know for sure is that Kim Wall was killed during a voyage with Peter Madsen and that overwhelming evidence pointed to Madsen as the perpetrator. The alternative narratives that Madsen put forward are highly implausible, but it should be up to the reader to conclude that he indeed committed the crime for which he was convicted. Connor Behan (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I think "was killed" is the right way to go. It lets the reader decide. "Died" is too ambiguous while "was murdered" and "was killed by so-and-so" incorrectly imply 100% certainty ("was murdered" also causes a repitition in the sentence as I stated above). "Was killed" on its own indicates what is certain – that Wall was definitely killed by either someone or something and didn't die of natural causes – and also avoids ambiguity, along with repitition in the sentence. Overall, a "happy medium" (well, not happy, of course). Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 18:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Obviously this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I don't understand why we'd say "It's up to the reader to decide" in this article, whereas in virtually all other "Murder of X" articles we use narrative voice to say that someone murdered someone else.

There aren't any facts that can be stated with 100% certainty, and yet we still state things unambiguously. NickCT (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Madsen has been convicted in a court of law, and though he still denies it he has not appealed the conviction (only the sentence). I see no reason not to state clearly and umambiguously, in the lead and elsewhere in the article, that he killed Wall. Still, there could be a section dealing specifically with possible doubts (and certainly stating his denial).--Nø (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I still think the way the article is written now, there should be no confusion about anything. It states the known facts clearly and neutrally, and said facts are supported by reliable sources: this woman died unexpectedly; police suspected she had been killed by the man she was last seen with; this man was arrested and charged with her murder; he admitted certain things such as mutilating her body but denied killing her intentionally; the court convicted him of murder nevertheless. Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 14:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Linguist111: - Regardless of the facts of the case, can you explain why we ought to treat this article differently from other "Murder of X" articles? NickCT (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT: Every murder case is different and so there are different ways of writing about each one. For instance, there is no doubt at all that Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald, as it was caught on camera and there were witnesses who stopped him escaping. Michel Fourniret gave detailed confessions about how he killed his victims, which may not necessarily be true, but are included under a section titled "Confessed murders" to highlight they are merely his words. In the cases of Milly Dowler, Tia Sharp and April Jones, there were no witnesses, footage etc., and those articles state the facts similarly to this article (this girl disappeared, was found dead/believed to be dead, someone was arrested and charged and said this or that, was found guilty of murder). The use of "so-and-so was murdered/killed by so-and-so" in articles may or may not be the right words to use in articles about murders, but those issues can be discussed on those murder articles' individual talk pages. But as for the Murder of Kim Wall article, it states facts clearly and accurately. Why is there a need to change a statement that is accurate? Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 02:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: here I have re-written the lead to detail more of the key facts, including the disappearance of Wall and the subsequent discovery of her body. I hope it is succinct enough and will solve this dispute. Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 02:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Linguist111: - You're cherry picking. If you do an unbiased review of "Murder of X" articles, the vast majority directly ascribe blame to the convicted murdererin narrative tone, regardless of whether there was footage/witnesses. You've highlighted a couple cases where there seems to have been doubt about the perpetrators. I'll grant you that in some cases where there are significant doubts or alternative theories proposed in WP:RS's, it may be appropriate to avoid narrative tone. But that's obviously not the case here. NickCT (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT: Do you not think the lead is at least reasonably good now, though? Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 15:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's "reasonably good". I think it would be better if we followed standard practice and simply stated that Madsen killed Wall straight out. Regardless, I'm not perturbed enough to push on this point. NickCT (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have just one last reply to make, about your comment of what you believe to be standard practice. I don’t this talk page is the right place to discuss things like the blanket use of the straightforward “so-and-so was killed/murdered by so-and-so” term. If you do want us to discuss that, we should probably use the talk page of a page like WP:MURDEROF, an essay about “Murder of” articles. But I’ll leave that up to you. Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 15:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right that policy discussions should be discussed on policy pages. But I think that WP:BLPCRIME would be the better place for a discussion like this. And I think that WP:BLPCRIME already implicitly speaks to the point we're discussing when it says "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law". In other words, I think WP:BLPCRIME tells us we should presume guilt when someone is convicted (which is something we're not doing in the current intro).

That said, I realize that policy could be interpreted multiple ways. NickCT (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I dare say it is not Linguist and I who are appealing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If other articles about murders state that "X killed Y" on the basis of a conviction alone, they should be corrected in due course. Courts having a standard of "no reasonable doubt" rather than "metaphysical certainty" is necessary for society to function. In an encyclopedia, on the other hand, there is no reason not to describe the situation as precisely as possible. Connor Behan (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Prison escape?

I don't think it's right to call Madsen's escape attempt an escape, given that he was apprehended pretty much immediately; even the source cited (Sky) is calling it merely an attempt. Also, he reportedly had a 'belt-like object' which he claimed was a bomb belt (as well as possibly a 'gun-like object'); hence, to say that he "escaped using a bomb belt" is doubly misleading IMO. I'm toning down the section a bit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kim Wall - Utställning - Ystad-2019.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Kim Wall noteworthy enough for an article about her?

I'll start by saying that this is an emotional gut reaction more than anything, but it bothers me and feels disrespectful to her memory that her name redirects to an article on her murder. Wikipedia isn't a place for my personal opinions, and I have my opinions about Peter Madsen based on having briefly talked to him regarding Copenhagen Suborbitals and having heard opinions of Peter from people who have worked with him.

I will look myself, but as a native English speaker from the US I am not the best person to judge. For European and particularly Swedish editors who would know more than I do, is she noteworthy enough to have an article about her separate from this one? IanH84 (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)