From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Apart from one or two lone comments advocating deletion, it's clear that consensus is to keep this article in one form or another. There is no consensus whether to keep as a stand-alone article or redirect/merge it to a list of such attacks but that's not something that has to be decided at AfD but can always be proposed on the talk page. Regards So Why 09:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply

2017 Notre Dame attack

2017 Notre Dame attack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a minor incident that could easily be summarized in another article. - Mr X 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep: Where will we draw the line as to what is too minor and what is not? Just keep it. There are plenty of articles about less significant things. We shouldn't arbitrarily choose which events are significant. Everyone could be covered in a different article. And what relevance does a newspaper hold? El cid, el campeador ( talk) 17:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
This is why we have WP:OSE, and WP:NOTNEWS. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
"These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." Not News could be applied to any article on an event, I miss your point. Do a certain number of people have to die for it to be notnews? El cid, el campeador ( talk) 17:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
There has to be significant coverage which is lacking here. The content can easily be summarized in the redirect I proposed. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Okay can you point to where this article would apply? Lacking in depth sources is a red flag when it comes to notability for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that while article creator (497 edits to date) is a WP:NEWBIES, Nom is an editor with vast experience who ought to have followed WP:RAPID. As the closing editor wrote at a similar article that was rushed to deletion by Mr. X a couple of weeks ago and closed as No consensus, "Additionally, the incident happened very recently, and new information is still coming out about it. This article was created on the day of the incident, and the AfD was started 8 hours after the article was created (which is discouraged by WP:RAPID for this very reason). There will be a better opportunity for a stronger consensus to emerge after the dust settles." As an editor who regularly works on terrorism-related articles, I have real fear that rushing articles on breaking news events of this kind can tend to WP:DISRUPT the project by forcing editors - especially new editors - to run the AfD gauntlet. I strongly suggest that Mr X withdraw this. If his opinion is unchanged a few months, he can nominate it then. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
A redirect isn't deletion. ( WP:TOOSOON) - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
I decline. There is no time constraint on deleting articles. Editors should use their judgement based on common practice, content policies, nature of the subject, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT, and other factors. This article is about a person who hit another person with a hammer. Meanwhile, we don't have independent articles for the daily massacres in Syria and Iraq; street executions in the Philippines; or for the five people who were brutally murdered in Orlando, Florida yesterday. We need to instill some perspective into our content decisions and not simply try to promote an project-wide viewpoint that the world is besieged by Islamist terrorism.- Mr X 18:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
That attack killed 20 people, here you have a lone man swinging a hammer at a cop. Two police officers were killed today as well in a shootout with gunmen who probably belonged to Islamic State in Egypt's northern Sinai, where is the article about this? [1] - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per WP:RAPID, let's wait and see how this develops before wasting time on an AfD. Edwardx ( talk) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The correct thing to do would be to spin out things into articles when they get to be too big. Nobody is saying this isn't notable just that it shouldn't have its own article yet. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, redirect. Sadly routine and minor incident, with no deaths or major injuries (apart from the guy who did it). ansh 666 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Untrue. Drmies did not "find" the source, he just read the link. Misread it, actually. The Centre was under discussion, but it was not "ordered" a month ago. See my comment below. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Either way, it was publicly announced as a result of this attack, so my revised comment stands. ansh 666 03:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Let's see how this develops first before deleting articles, it's receiving worldwide attention. MookiePlays ( talk) 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
An interesting philosophy would be 'let's see how this develops first before writing articles'  :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the reminder, months later that attack still has not stood out. It should be merged into Terrorism in France as nothing came out of that event that made it stand out from other terrorist events. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • You nominated it. Then 12 editors weighed in, all twelve iVoting to keep. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • That was a major bomb plot.... this was a lone guy swinging a hammer. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The French President now plans to extend the 'State of Emergency' and implement additional security measures due to this event Murchison-Eye ( talk) 01:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This is going to eventually lapse unless it extended again by some other means. Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - Once again, the keep rationales for this event are terribly unconvincing and misunderstand the point of NOTNEWS. Wikipedia does not wait a few months for events to be notable; they either are or they are not. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Snow Keep - Possibly this will become a redirect, but that doesn't need to happen in AfD. Power~enwiki ( talk) 22:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that within hours there are stories reported from Paris (ie NOT wire service stories) in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Los Angeles Times, reported stories. also, that was Nancy Soderberg tweeting from inside the cathedral. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Why should that be surprising? Drmies ( talk) 22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Reported stories are not assigned/written for "routine" attacks in foreign cities. Such stories are testament to the notability of this attack. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • They are testament to the newsworthiness of this attack; tomorrow we'll have wrapped fish in it. Surely you know this. Drmies ( talk) 22:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, or find some redirection target. Not every headline or set of headlines is an article. BTW, that template with search avenues on top of this AfD should indicate what the problem is with such articles. We don't have a thing called "2017 Notre Dame attack"--we're like CNN making up names for events. There is of course no coverage of this event anywhere else but in the news, nor will there be for a long time, if ever. So the suggestion to search JSTOR or Google Books is ludicrous, and even if there were hits there you are not likely to get them under this exact name. I hope I'm not the only one seeing this as a problem. Drmies ( talk) 22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017. This is why we have WP:NOTNEWS. Lepricavark ( talk) 23:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017 - as well explained above. Neutrality talk 23:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply

*Redirect per those advocating same. If and when this generates enough material to warrant a separate article, no problem to recreate it, but at the moment it's (and I'm not sure this is a phrase I want to use) a "run of the mill" attack. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Exceptionally weak keep. I promised I'd review my opinion if and when the facts changed, and it appears that the consequences (and possibly the circumstances) of this particular incident are sufficiently distinctive as to merit a keep...just. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
BigHaz if you have time, I recommend you read Drmies source further below. The task force was not created as a result of this attack; in fact, it was announced a month ago. I'm not sure if that affects your opinion but I thought it is worth mentioning. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 20:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
It does ever so slightly, but probably not enough to change my faintest-of-keeps as the sort of "bottom line". Thanks for the heads-up, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • You guys have awfully good WP:CRYSTALBALLS. Me, I'd not only like to hear how the French cabinet responds when they meet tomorrow, I'd like to wait the full 7 days, maybe longer to see the degree to which the press responds with SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
This attack alone isn't notable, the attacks as a whole and the collective response are though. I would suggest someone summarize France's response to terrorism in the country in another article. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
E.M.Gregory, there are so many more articles to write on topics that are proven to be notable. Why are you trying to do the job of the news sites? We're not bad at it, and it's sexy to get it up quickly with pictures and maps and flags for responses (I sure hope we have some response...)--but it's not our job. Drmies ( talk) 02:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
But the article has well already been written, meaning we've done a good enough job of making it notable. Do you have any idea how many articles there are? Millions. If you're telling me even a majority of them are more notable than this, I'd be surprised El cid, el campeador ( talk) 02:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC). reply
El cid, I've been around long enough to have a pretty decent idea of how many articles we have, but thank you for the pointer. Now, "we've done a good enough job of making it notable"--a possibly Freudian slip. Blowing it up, with maps and flags and fancy names, makes it notable: you are suggesting we are making news, and given our high scores on Google searches that could be true--all the more reasons to be reticent rather than eager in writing up things that just happened. Yes, a majority of our articles are more notable than this topic (do not confuse an article with a topic). Drmies ( talk) 12:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Besides which, an AfD isn't an instant process. In the event that the French cabinet does something significant as a response to this (or in the event that something else significant happens as a result of this), I for one am happy to revise my opinion and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one to do so. As at this precise moment, though, a redirect is an eminently sensible approach to take. I'm also not sure Wikipedia's role is to "make something notable", so much as it is to write about things which have already become so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
I misspoke in that, but it doesn't matter. The point is that it's already written and longer than most articles, and has several sources. What point is there in deleting it? Other than perhaps making some people feel important El cid, el campeador ( talk) 02:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Again, the question isn't "Is the article written?", much less "Is it bigger than article X?". The question is whether each and every terrorist attack is encyclopedic before they trigger any notable events beyond "Someone attacked people with a hammer at Notre Dame Cathedral". If the French President comes out and bans hammers from sale (to take a silly potential outcome), then there's patently an encyclopedic value in having this article. If life carries on much as it did beforehand, then there doesn't appear to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • No; "the question" is whether reliable sources treat this specific attack as notable, by the standards laid out at WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The attack is notable as is the ongoing terrorist attacks in France. Its a continuing stream that can easily be summarized. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that attacker's injuries are "minor," so there will be a trial; ongoing coverage. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 09:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - attack has recieved world wide attention. The attacker was a noted journalist. Article is in good shape and with good sources. -- BabbaQ ( talk) 09:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
A 'noted' journalist? Or, actually, a 'journalist'? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Worth pointing out that yes, the perpetrator is a noted journalist. For instance, he won second place in the European Commission's 2009 "EU Journalist Award", established under the EC's PROGRESS programme. XavierItzm ( talk) 15:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep not a "routine" or "minor" incident. It has received worldwide attention. There will be no consensus to delete this. However, I would not object to a redirect if there is consensus that we are better waiting to see if an article should be spun out later.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 12:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, the world knows that France has been under continued terrorist attacks, it is part of a larger picture. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • What useful information? Do we need extra details about how person x recited the Lord's prayer while being locked inside the church? The article can be summed up be saying "An Algerian student named Farid Ikken, injured an officer with a hammer then was shot in response by police. Ikken was an award winning journalist who lived in France who claimed to be a "soldier of the caliphate". As a response to the incident a new task force called the National Centre for Counter Terrorism was created, and the state of emergency extended for an additional few months." Add in a few extra details to that and you have the entire article summarized in a paragraph. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I would not personally have chosen to delete well-sourced information from an article while arguing that the article should be deleted because it lacks information; it gives more the feel of marking cards in a friendly hand of poker than working collegiality to build an encyclopedia.. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Can you respond to my comment by sharing why you chose that particular list as a merge target? To me the difficult of choosing which list to merge this or any specific terrorist attack to is a fundamental argument against merging. It makes specific incidents so much harder to find that if we keep the article and link it from all of the relevant lists/articles. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • With new details pouring out of the European press, not only about the creation of the National Centre for Counter Terrorism, but about the unusually well-educated perp, I make no doubt that the article will continue to be expanded with useful and interesting information. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Would possibly be inclined to agree with nominator when this first broke, but details that have now come out, especially regarding the unusual perpetrator makes it noteworthy in my opinion. Also 900 people locked in for hours followed by the French President launching a new counter-terrorism task force are lasting effects. User2534 ( talk) 06:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that jihadist is recovering in hospital and has been charged with attempted murder, so there will and be a trial and ensuing coverage. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is too much international coverage, there should be a WP:OBVIOUSTERRORISTATTACK to ban the standard drill dozens of editors immediately trying to whitewash every terrorist attack, and every terrorist style crime where the motive is "unclear" as per WP:NOTNEWS or not WP:NOTABLE even when it is front page news for a month. If these seemingly random attacks are coordinated, then we can expect coordinated active measures in media to downplay or spread disinformation or otherwise censor coverage of such events. In the case of the D.C. sniper attacks and Ali Muhammad Brown luring and killing of two gay men in Seattle and a student motorist in New Jersey, even seeming random and not notable crimes which are unexplained should be treated as suspected terrorist attacks as long as they receive verifiable local coverage. Wikipedia can be a useful resource for researchers seeking to connect seemingly unconnected events even when authorities cannot. As it is, Wikipedia is woefully useless compared to Heavy and Everipedia which have no such high barrier to covering any event with substantial news coverage or even minimal coverage in blogs with a conservative or tabloid agenda which are often the only reliable media for attacks which are not covered by "reliable" sources. There are hundreds of unexplained crimes and accidents where the motive or criminal aspects are unproven or a credible possibility. Hammer and ax attacks like this deserve attention when they are done at landmarks that are strategic to terrorists and when they leave evidence to authorities that they are inspired by terrorist movements like ISIS. There should be no difference in coverage just because one is proven to be inspired or directed by terrorists, or may have been staged to look like road rage, breakup rage, rage over workplace firing, intoxication or mental illness, when the only difference is motive. Bachcell ( talk) 12:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete' No international coverage. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 12:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • False premise. International coverage is already on the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk)
    • @ E.M.Gregory: True premise. When one has articles from the foreign press for 2 days is not international coverage. sorry. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 16:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Just noting that yesterday 's New York Times had a large photo of this indicent at the top of the front page, and that the story in the Times and in a number of other American papers, both national and regional papers, was reported from Paris, i.e., not an echo of a wire service story. The story also led the the news on NPR & CNN. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Is the Wikipedia running out of server space? No. This event has been widely covered by WP:RS worldwide and content continues to be added. There is no sound rationale for deletion, and if this were deleted for reasons of being considered "minor" (in the eyes of the deleter), then about 1/2 of the Wikipedia, with articles with less sources and less edits, would have to be deleted too, for consistency. As the latter is unlikely to happen, the deletion of this page and not of the others would show clear bias/censorship by the deleters. XavierItzm ( talk) 14:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017, per Knowledgekid and others. - Sigersson ( talk) 14:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Not less minor than many articles on sporting events. 900 tourists stuck for two hours in Notre Dame -- Olevy ( talk) 09:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Snow keep the same reasons as the others. Not to mention that many an article already has linked to this article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rævhuld ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This attack has received significant coverage in news sources across several nations ( Germany, Sweden, Great Britain, United States and of course France). Meets WP:GNG. -- Skr15081997 ( talk) 14:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note: today is 9 June. Seems like the event is over. Drmies ( talk) 20:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Yup, had its time in the news and now it is past. The attacker here seems to be more notable than the attack itself though so a merger into a new article might be a better solution. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 05:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Of course it is over. But so are several other terrorist incidents over the years. And we have articles about those. That is a null and void comment.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 07:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • BabbaQ WP:OSE is not an argument. Drmies' point was the wave of media coverage about the event is over. No one here can claim it is sustained unless they have a WP:CRYSTALBALL -- which seems like a very accessible item for editors lately at these types of AfDs. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 08:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Even as you were asserting that coverage is "over," a columnist for an American big city daily, the Sun-Sentinel, was complaining vociferously that the press has spent too much time covering this story, "During the day, CNN led the story with big, important-looking "Breaking News" graphics. That night, the incident in Paris led the evening news all over the country. Newspapers worldwide were all over the story." [2]. He is outraged that "a possible terrorist with a hammer thousands of miles away gets more public attention than a mass murder in Orlando." E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Coverage on such an intense and massive scale would probably establish notability even if coverage now ended. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • But I said above, details continue to be published and, since he is said to be recovering, press coverage will continue as he goes to trial. Not to mention the impact of this event on French security services already noted in article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    An impact cleverly fabricated/suggested in the article, which doesn't note that the "new counter-terrorism task force" was ordered a month ago; that it was announced the day after this one mad person's attack is coincidence. E.M. Gregory, can you please use phrases like "intense and massive scale" a bit more judiciously? It sounds like the claims made in presidential tweets. Drmies ( talk) 14:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Coverage of this attack in the U.S. was on an "intense and massive scale" on Tuesday and Wednesday last. Truly, led the news at the top of the hour, front page photos. Regional newspapers and broadcast media running interviews with locals who were in or near the Cathedral. I won't speculate as to why. But the coverage for about 36 hours was massive and intensive. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I did not fabricate, please rescind your slander. What I wrote was that Macron "announced the creation of a new intelligence task force..." This is accurate. Anyone following events, or reading the links will understand the a reform was contemplated and that Macron either moved it forward or made the final decision to announce what a plan that had been proposed but not decided upon in the wake of this event. That is, it was unclear whether the Notre Dame attack caused Macron to finalize his decision or to move an already firm decision forward. Because this was unclear, I worded it very carefully. But do Note that a plan is only a plan until it is formally announced. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Gregory from what I read on the source above it appears this has had little impact. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Straw man. My argument, and that of other editors, is simply that the attack is notable not because my personal opinion, but because politicians and the international press have deemed it notable. We follow sources, and the sources exist. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    • With regard to Drmies note of 9 June, here is a BBC article dated 11 June [1] and here is an article from the Sun also dated 11 June [2]. Looks like Drmies is absolutely correct: the "event" is over, but international coverage continues well past his comment! XavierItzm ( talk) 10:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40236305
  2. ^ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3774338/isis-fanatic-40-behind-notre-dame-hammer-attack-secretly-radicalised-himself-online-and-was-totally-unknown-to-cops-so-is-it-impossible-to-stop-lone-wolves/
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Notre_Dame_attack&oldid=1137520503"