Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Mikael Janicki: Difference between revisions

Murder of Mikael Janicki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Killing that is only subject to routine coverage that fails WP:NCRIME. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Sweden. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Nothing routine about this. Plenty of good third party sources. This is a very publicized murder in Sweden . WP:GNG applies as well.BabbaQ (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sadly, random shootings are routine in this world. The sources that cover this event are all newspapers engaging in run-of-the-mill crime reporting. There is nothing that is notable about this murder over any other random shooting that occurs daily in the world, notwithstanding that it received press coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a news website, nor is it a memorial. Coverage does not show a lasting effect or continuing coverage beyond the event and its repercussions for the perpetrator(s) and victim(s). I would reconsider this if the article described some, ongoing debates, government policy changes or legislative actions that could be linked specifically to this murder. Would consider draftification if there was a prospect of this happening. – Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Contrary, this is a highly publicized case. Which brought on discussions on the highest political level about violence and criminals in Sweden.BabbaQ (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Cameron Dewe: I’ve tried to show how this murder has played a central role in Swedish political debate about violence in society and has received sustained interest far beyond the average violent death – i.e. become something of encyclopedic interest as it is a small piece of the national story and something which helps the reader understand the Swedish conversation about crime and safety, linking to a couple of recent examples where major newspapers have used it in the political debate (in the headline or opening sentenecs) more than a year after the murder.

  As for government policy, here’s a speech from early 2025 (i.e. eight months later) by the Swedish Minister for Justice at the main Swedish annual conference for national security, where he presents three initiatives from the government and the first paragraphs starts with this particular murder to serve as an illustration of the need for these changes. /Julle (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  (An attempt to contexualize the latter link: This is a highly publized event and Strömmer, the Minister for Justice, represents the government position. If he starts his speech at Folk och Försvar with a particular thing, the government has decided to treat it as a key threat to (or, as in this case, a symbol of a key threat to) Swedish national security.) /Julle (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Contrary to what people above have claimed, this case has had lasting effect and continuing coverage. I get what some people mean since shootings happen quite often in Sweden, but this case has had way more coverage do to the circumstances that an innocent person was murdered infront of their child. I realized that the article might not have been very clear about the lasting effects, that could be worked on. But what I am saying is that you can search online and find hundreds of articles about this event, even after it happened.

Also, if it has any significance, this has already been discussed on the Swedish Wikipedia.
AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• What happened on Swedish Wikipedia has no bearing here. Our notability guidelines are different. The fact that there’s been more coverage of this shooting compared to other shootings is also not relevant. Continuing coverage of a murder case as there are new developments in the investigation/trial is to be expected. The coverage needs to be more than just “this terrible crime occurred” or “the investigation continues” or “politician says ‘this crime was terrible‘” or “killer is sentenced”. Otherwise, literally every single murder case where there’s a single news story every few months would get an article on Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  From what i can see there are extensive coverage, for example only weeks ago. And especially mentions by top politicians (Like the Prime Minister). This is definitely not a true representation of the coverage you are making above. My ”Keep” stance stays. BabbaQ (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Being mention[ed] by top politicians doesn’t establish notability. What about my characterization of the media coverage is incorrect? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Your claim is simply just false, there has been more coverage by media than just “”this terrible crime occurred” or “the investigation continues” or “politician says ‘this crime was terrible'” or “killer is sentenced”” and also the fact that Magdalena Andersson got in to hot water because of it. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Also RE Swedish Wikipedia, that discussion was hardly a ringing endorsement to keep the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:voorts

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
			Primary source, run-of-the-mill reporting immediately after the shooting.	✘ No
			Primary source, run-of-the-mill reporting a week after the shooting about how upset people are about shootings. Includes a reaction from a 15-year-old about leaving flowers and alludes to a quote from the justice minister, but does not acutally quote him.	✘ No
	Almost entirely quotes from family members without independent analysis.		Primary source, run-of-the-mill reporting from the day after the shooting.	✘ No
			Primary source, run-of-the-mill reporting from two days after the shooting about the police response and more quotes from the family.	✘ No
	interview of politician, not independent analysis.		Interview of politician.	✘ No
	Reporting of politicians’ statements, not independent analysis.		Primary source, run-of-the-mill reporting of politicians reactions the day after the shooting.	✘ No
			Run-of-the-mill update on charges being filed in the murder case.	✘ No
			Run-of-the-mill update on sentencing in the murder case.	✘ No
Svea Court of Appeal, Case no. B 4418-25			Court docket, not even a citation to a document in the docket, which would in any event be WP:OR.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• 6 of the 9 sources (there’s a duplicate citation in the article) cited in the article are from within a week of the murder. Of the other three, one is an update on charges being filed, another an update on sentencing, and the last is a citation to the court docket. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, I’m assuming the reliability of most of these sources. I don’t know what sources are tabloid/trashy in Sweden and which are reliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Definitely a strong candidate to the most well-known Swedish murder of the 2020s so far, with sustained interest. Towards the end of the 2024, the murder was still invoked as a key point in the political debate in major Swedish newspapers. In 2025, there was still enough interest for newspapers to publish articles on how the suspected murderer was found – note that the newspaper (from a different city) refers to the “murder of Mikael” and assumes the reader will know what this refers to. In early 2025, i.e. eight months after the murder, the biggest Swedish newspaper, Aftonbladet, could publish an 850-word article about the background of the murderer. The court proceedings were reported on in all major media (random example). And here’s an example 36-minute episode of Krimpodden, a pod produced by Expressen, solely focused on this murder in June 2025, i.e. more than a year after it happened. And so on. /Julle (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  While I’m sympathetic to the argument that murders happen all the time and isn’t a topic for encyclopdic inclusion (the only time I’ve dragged an article to AfD myself, it was a Swedish shooting), this is one of those rare cases which caused nation-wide debate and sustained interest. It might not be apparent from the sources included in the article at this time, but possibly with the exception shooting of Einár in 2021 (edit: or maybe sv:Mordet på Adriana, five years ago), I can’t think of a recent Swedish murder where the coverage has been as sustained and where the murder served a central role in the national debate. /Julle (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Just for context, a couple of examples of how this particular murder was still being invoked in the political debate a few months ago in major Swedish newspapers. /Julle (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m now agnostic between keep and delete based on @Julle‘s analysis. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About time. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no need for comments like that. People are allowed to disagree with each other and they’re allowed to change their mind. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Reconsideration: User:Julle has asked me to reconsider whether the article should be deleted, or draftified. The existing text of the article does not show a lasting effect or continuing coverage beyond the event and its repercussions for the perpetrator(s) and victim(s). If there is still an ongoing debate in Sweden about this murder, then that is not reflected in the article. The current article does not identify when the any debates or reactions have occurred, or if the current debate is directly linked to this specific murder, or merely mentioned in passing in any debates about gang violence or violent crime. To justify keeping the article it needs to cover the current political debate as well as then show how government legislative and policy changes have resulted from this murder. An example would be the government passes new laws that ban people congregating or loitering in or near pedestrian tunnels and other confined places to address how this murder arose. The article should be draftified if there is a good prospect of that sort of improvement being made to the article. – Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If the article does get draftified, could @Julle help improve it? He seems to know what he is talking about very well. AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No. /Julle (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m okay with draftification as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Based primarily on the excellent analysis by Julle. At first glance I was thinking delete but it is clear this murder has had a significant and ongoing impact in Swedish society and in political debate. Coverage goes beyond what is typical of a murder, particularly in comparison with larger countries where murder is more common. AusLondonder (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Barron’s ([1], WP:RS) reports that the offender received 14 years in prison despite being a minor at the time of the crime, which the court confirmed is the maximum sentence legally possible for under-18s, and that if he had been only a few months older a life sentence would otherwise have applied. Giving the maximum possible sentence to a minor shows that the courts treated this as an exceptional case. This supports editor Julle’s analysis that the case has significance beyond ordinary coverage. HerBauhaus (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is defined by coverage in reliable secondary sources, not by what the courts do. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]