| Revision as of 12:51, 20 August 2017 editPanam2014 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,404 edits →Levallois-Perret attack← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:16, 20 August 2017 edit undoE.M.Gregory (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users45,004 edits fact chcek asseritonNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| *'''Keep''' Even though article was created just after this attack, Nom would have done better to have waited a few months as per ]. Notable attack that meets those criteria of ] that can be measured at this point: there has been ] of the attack in both national and international press (I just added two days of reported coverage from Paris in the ] to page). Perp is in hospital in police custody so there will be a trial, no CRYSTALBALL is needed to know that the trial will generate coverage. And '''Note''' that this is one of an extraordinary series of similar attacks on French soldiers on domestic patrol duty in France in peacetime, including the ], ], ], ], ]. Give that we ''kept'' each of the previous, similar attacks, I suggest that it is not ] and we accomplish nothing by having this discussion this every time a similar attack targets French security patrols.] (]) 11:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Even though article was created just after this attack, Nom would have done better to have waited a few months as per ]. Notable attack that meets those criteria of ] that can be measured at this point: there has been ] of the attack in both national and international press (I just added two days of reported coverage from Paris in the ] to page). Perp is in hospital in police custody so there will be a trial, no CRYSTALBALL is needed to know that the trial will generate coverage. And '''Note''' that this is one of an extraordinary series of similar attacks on French soldiers on domestic patrol duty in France in peacetime, including the ], ], ], ], ]. Give that we ''kept'' each of the previous, similar attacks, I suggest that it is not ] and we accomplish nothing by having this discussion this every time a similar attack targets French security patrols.] (]) 11:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :The problem is the majority of the pages were kept by lack of consensus and a new request is possible for them. The majority have not been heavily covered and the latter has made even less "noise." And that he is in the hospital does not change the eligibility. Nothing says that when you leave the hospital you will hear about it again. This is what comes under "]". --] (]) 12:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC) | :The problem is the majority of the pages were kept by lack of consensus and a new request is possible for them. The majority have not been heavily covered and the latter has made even less "noise." And that he is in the hospital does not change the eligibility. Nothing says that when you leave the hospital you will hear about it again. This is what comes under "]". --] (]) 12:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :*'''Fact checking''' your "lack of consensus" assertion. the 2017 terrorist attacks on soldiers/police in France, ], ] and ] were all closed as ''keep'' following well-attended AfDs. ] was borught to AfD but withdrawn as ''keep'' by Nom, while the ] are now the subject of a sort of AfD-by stealth by an editor who has not brought the attacks to AfD but is, instead, attempting to merge it into a list, the goal put forth by the editor concerned at a series of AfD's on terrorist attacks.] (]) 14:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:16, 20 August 2017
Levallois-Perret attack
AfDs for this article:- Levallois-Perret attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Outside criteria, event not known.page created by User:Panam2014.
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 17. —Talk to my owner:Online 23:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable and well-sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz: The fact that a small article is well sourced does not automatically render it admissible. For the notability, I want proof. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- The onus is on the proposer to outline a deletion rationale. Your rationale was stated "event not known". This event is clearly known, and has been covered by just about every major world outlet and can be seen by even a cursory BEFORE - with coverage persisting from the event to today.Icewhiz (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz: No. The event is not know and there are no coverage during the coverage is not persisting today and there are no proof that the coverage will continue in the next weeks and months. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- The onus is on the proposer to outline a deletion rationale. Your rationale was stated "event not known". This event is clearly known, and has been covered by just about every major world outlet and can be seen by even a cursory BEFORE - with coverage persisting from the event to today.Icewhiz (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No lasting significance. No one killed. This is a routine crime. Misplaced Pages cannot document every motor vehicle collision. For inexplicable reasons a couple of other minor, unrelated incidents (some with no credible indication of Islamist terrorism) have been added-on in an attempt to build an article. AusLondonder (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No indication of any lasting significance. The fact that more than half of the article is about other recent events in France is a gigantic give-away that this simply isn't remotely notable, beyond perhaps a mention on list of incidents page. Editors should learn the difference between 'launching an investigation' (as to whether an incident is terrorist in nature), 'charging someone with a terrorist offence' (which means they think the incident is terrorist in nature), and finding someone guilty of said offence. Trying to establish if there are little green men on Mars does not mean that there are little green men on Mars. None of the authorities or sources are even speculating on an Islamist motive, yet the article treats that motive as fact.Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Pincrete: How about we keep it until the terror investigation is concluded? --HeinzMaster (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't work that way, the burden of proof rests with those claiming notability. We have no way of knowing that an investigation will establish anything. In my experience, 'non-juicy' outcomes don't get recorded at all.
- @Pincrete: How about we keep it until the terror investigation is concluded? --HeinzMaster (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Pincrete (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Pincrete: According to one of the sources, "The Paris prosecutor's office said it was "pursuing perpetrators on charges of the attempted murder of security forces in connection with a terrorist enterprise". Hence while there is no proof it was a islamic in nature, it is still a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks don't have to be islamic you know--HeinzMaster (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have removed the speculated Islamist background, this is pure OR, since no source has even speculated about any possible motive so far and the named accused is covered by BLP. Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete - This incident is the latest example of bandwagon creation of articles for non-notable events just because the event is in the media. Sport and politics (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Merge Merge with another article about French Terrorism, as this lacks significance, but should still be noted. Aidan (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - No WP:LASTING impact has been established from the brief news cycle. Any arguments about the possibility of coverage for a trial is WP:CRYSTALBALL. May I also remind everyone mention of the outcome of said trial is WP:ROUTINE. Here is an essential line from WP:EVENTCRIT which !voters should take into consideration: "Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Misplaced Pages and encyclopedias generally".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Even though article was created just after this attack, Nom would have done better to have waited a few months as per WP:RAPID. Notable attack that meets those criteria of WP:NCRIME that can be measured at this point: there has been WP:SIGCOV of the attack in both national and international press (I just added two days of reported coverage from Paris in the Wall Street Journal to page). Perp is in hospital in police custody so there will be a trial, no CRYSTALBALL is needed to know that the trial will generate coverage. And Note that this is one of an extraordinary series of similar attacks on French soldiers on domestic patrol duty in France in peacetime, including the June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack, 2017 Notre Dame attack, April 2017 Champs-Élysées attack, March 2017 Île-de-France attacks, Louvre machete attack. Give that we kept each of the previous, similar attacks, I suggest that it is not Groundhog Day and we accomplish nothing by having this discussion this every time a similar attack targets French security patrols.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is the majority of the pages were kept by lack of consensus and a new request is possible for them. The majority have not been heavily covered and the latter has made even less "noise." And that he is in the hospital does not change the eligibility. Nothing says that when you leave the hospital you will hear about it again. This is what comes under "WP: CRYSTAL". --Panam2014 (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Fact checking your "lack of consensus" assertion. the 2017 terrorist attacks on soldiers/police in France, June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack, 2017 Notre Dame attack and Louvre machete attack were all closed as keep following well-attended AfDs. April 2017 Champs-Élysées attack was borught to AfD but withdrawn as keep by Nom, while the March 2017 Île-de-France attacks are now the subject of a sort of AfD-by stealth by an editor who has not brought the attacks to AfD but is, instead, attempting to merge it into a list, the goal put forth by the editor concerned at a series of AfD's on terrorist attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)