Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Notre Dame attack: Difference between revisions

2017 Notre Dame attack

2017 Notre Dame 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)

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

• Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in June 2017. Not every attack in the world needs its own article. If not for the "terrorist" label this kind of story could be found in a local newspaper. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

This is why we have WP:OSE, and WP:NOTNEWS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"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)

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)

• Redirect per knowledgekid. Only minor coverage even in France- the English attacks are receiving heavier coverage! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep It's WP:NOTE on WP:EVENTS. Or who and when do we decide an attack is big enough to be included? There are far less relevant incidents who has gotten an article, like 2017 Portland train attack.--Rævhuld (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

A redirect isn't deletion. (WP:TOOSOON) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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.- MrX 18:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3) Keep per Rævhuld: It's an obviously notable event with reliable sources provided. Each terrorist attack has an article including minor events just like June 2017 Kabul attack. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• Yeah, redirect. Sadly routine and minor incident, with no deaths or major injuries (apart from the guy who did it). ansh666 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Let's see how this develops first before deleting articles, it's receiving worldwide attention. MookiePlays (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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)