Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:48, 4 April 2017

2017 Antwerp attack

2017 Antwerp 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)

Hi It is not a notable attack. The author of the attack drunked a lot. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Deleter I agree that this "attack" is not notable and should be deleted. A look at news sources shows no continuing coverage. Jolly Ω Janner 08:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect (can be redirected later if needed) to List of terrorist incidents in March 2017. Clearly newsworthy (WP:NOTNEWS). Timing with London and possibly style with Berlin, passes GNG, arguably notable as similar as part of pattern which is no less notable for deathtoll. Too early to say if will turn from a news item to long-term, but there's sources including ones days after the event . Widefox; talk 09:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: any official source said that it is evident that the attack is terrorist. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

We build articles and notability on WP:SECONDARY sources not WP:PRIMARY. Sources are saying threat level not changed, but extra security put on. Per WP:EVENT passes "widespread (national or international) impact ". It's WP:CRYSTAL to say it's terrorism or not, or has no long-term impact. Widefox; talk 09:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: any secondary source said that it is a terrorist attack. And the secondary sources are based on the investigation results. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:N. This nomination is currently unconvincing - alcohol is irrelevant for notability, and so it's as simple as that. Please make a better case, say reasoning it per guideline rather than just stating it is not notable. NYT sources . That's way over WP:GNG counting them as WP:RS (although yes, WP:PRIMARYNEWS). Per EVENT "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.". Also see WP:BEFORE. Widefox; talk 09:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: No, the request is totally legitimate, the investigation shows that the author was under the influence of alcohol, there was no claim of a terrorist group and the perpetrator did not Is not claimed from any organization. Moreover, what falls under WP: CRISTAL is the fact of affirming that this event will be notorious. It should therefore be deleted until proof to the contrary. And not the other way around. And then another contributor supports my request so thank you for not passing your personal opinion for the truth. And in the meantime, you have not proved anything. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think redirecting to terrorist incidents is a no go since we have no proof this was such. There's some interesting points at the French wiki: fr:Discussion:Attaque à Anvers en mars 2017/Suppression. Jolly Ω Janner 18:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It's already in List of terrorist incidents in March 2017. On one hand we have "charged with attempted terrorism", and WP:NOTTRUTH. On the other, a simpler explanation that fits the evidence that this was not terrorism but a drug-induced mistake by a criminal that fitted recent terrorism. We do not know the truth, so can only reflect what sources say per NOTTRUTH and WP:OR. Widefox; talk 09:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep This thwarted terrorist attack received international coverage, only reason it hasn't received more coverage was no one was killed.Cllgbksr (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cllgbksr: it is not a terrorist attack, it is a crime committed by a drunker and a junkie. Please read the sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

They're not mutually exclusive. Has the terrorism charge been dropped? Widefox; talk 15:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, no one was injured or killed, not notable in my eyes though it should stay on the List of terrorist incidents in March 2017 assuming reputable sources state it was such, not just drug-induced. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Bit early to say if just run of the mill event, or per EVENT "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Widefox; talk 08:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - per sources, this is pure speculation by the nom that it was not a failed terrorist attempt. I see no reason for deletion at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• @BabbaQ: No, the sources don't say that. + the investigations. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep While it is true that the perp "drunked a lot," it is pertinent that Belgian authorities have charged him with terrorism. International coverage makes it notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• @E.M.Gregory: I mostly feel that some want to keep the items to keep them. I do not see any national and international coverage for several weeks and no source speaks of radicalization or ties or interest for a terrorist group. And there are no victims. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "I do not see any national and international coverage for several weeks" is a remarkable assertion about an attack that took place 14 days ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• @E.M.Gregory:The facts are clear, the attack was mediated only because the media got excited. On the other hand, for the London attack, we always have new information every day. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:Panam2014, Although I see that you have been editing longer than I have, perhaps you do not often edit terrorist-related articles. Just for comparative purposes, you might want to look at some other attacks in which no one was killed (except perp): Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2014 Tours stabbings, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2014 Endeavour Hills stabbings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• @E.M.Gregory: I think that on Misplaced Pages, there are two irreconcilable tendencies: the suppressionists and the inclusionists. I consider myself to be at the center, knowing that I have often defended tooth and nail pages that I think deserve to be on the encyclopedia, and here I defend the deletion of a page which in my opinion is not Not eligible. For the article on Australia, the investigators found evidence of its links with terrorism, not here. Or else I want to see recent articles if things have escaped me. And then the author is not dead so we could delete and restore the page if he is convicted for terrorism. For the moment, I look for WP: CRYSTALBALL. Also, please see the others arguments. So, I respect your opinion. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note that police found a rifle, knives, and a can containing some sort of suspicious substance in the car. Although the wheels of justice grind slowly, there are highly likely to be further legal developments covered by news media, which is why we don't rush to delete recent crime articles WP:RAPID.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep because it's clearly an act of terrorism, no matter what else anyone coughs it up as. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates