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 no consensus. There's no obvious agreement whether to keep, merge or delete and people are starting to yell at each other, so it's best to close this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Levallois-Perret attack [edit]

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable and well-sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• Delete No lasting significance. No one killed. This is a routine crime. Wikipedia 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

@Pincrete: How about we keep it until the terror investigation is concluded? --HeinzMaster (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Being kept by lack of consensus. It is clear. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Still being covered (second arrest, Catalonia attacks, etc.): [1] [2] [3] [4].Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• All of which are WP:ROUTINE reports.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A car deliberately ramming a group of about a dozen soldiers—in France—injuring six, which has been deemed terrorism by French officials and commented by the Interior Minister, is by no means a "routine crime" or a casual "motor vehicle collision" as another user who voted here suggests. Other comments supporting deletion here are not much better. User2534 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should also be made more clear (which doesn't seem so from comments), that the car/attacker wasn't captured until hours later 260 kilometres north of Paris by an armed police elite unit, and that several addresses were raided by police in connection with the attack later the same day. This has now been added to the article from the sources already available. User2534 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite this, your argumebts does not make the article eligible to be kept. Please read Wikipedia:Notability. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's pretty rich when your original "argument" for nominating this for deletion is "Outside criteria, event not known." Three of the five-word rationale, "event not known" is outright false (if intelligible), and overall it's lacking in any meaningful substance. User2534 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, your argument is irreceivable, and my argument is self-sufficient. You are not questioned about the notoriety. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no point in arguing your legitimate points Panam. You can give them every single policy-based reason this incident does not meet requirements for a standalone article but all they will see is "terror attack". Those who read the guidelines know it fails WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:LASTING, WP:DIVERSE...the list goes on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: No, the facts are clear. The contributor has by no means proved the eligibility of the subject to be kept. It is up to him if he wants to convince, but not with this non-argument. Let us recall that it was he who began by using fallacious arguments to discredit my opinion and the demand while nothing in his arguments can prove admissibility. And "terrorist attack" or "attack against solidiers" is not an enough argument to keep the page. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panam I fully agree with you. My point was, however, no matter how many legitimate policy-based reasons there are -- and there are -- to delete this article, there will always be some editors who will vote keep simply because it was a terror attack. They do not care if it had no WP:LASTING impact, falls under WP:NOTNEWS, and fails WP:EVENTCRIT among other things. I just do not want you to waste your time trying to convince voters to follow policies they have already chosen to ignore several times before.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: I know that, and it's unfortunate. The rules must be used to be respected. Perhaps in light of these recidivism, we might have to think about a rule to prevent it from starting again. But as they do not care about the rules, I have told them they are wrong and they will not make these rules disappear. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss policy, WP:LASTING actually only says that events with lasting events are more likely to be notable, and specifically concludes that "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." WP:NOTNEWS is, other than discouraging original reporting and making articles about celebrity news, that "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." How this remotely affects this article I'd like to know. And there is nothing inherent in User2534 (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is all to be clear. It's up to you and you alone to prove fame if you care so much about the article. And if not, it should be deleted. Afterwards, if you have a few months later new arguments, it would still be time to start a restoration debate of the article. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note It should also be noted, per what I have quoted above, that WP:LASTING—erroneously—also has been used as the main argument for deletion by a majority of at least three users voting delete here. User2534 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User2534 you falsely claim WP:LASTING is not being used appropriately but here is the section you quoted: "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable". That does not make a case for notability; it means that is another strike against. Also, WP:NOTNEWS says "For example..." meaning there are other examples that can be used. It does not say "here are the only examples". This unnotable incident still falls under such NOTNEWS guidelines.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This two week old event is still being covered. Here is a random piece from 3 hours ago(23rd August) - [5]. It was, and is, covered world-wide. You might have a personal opinion on what is notable and what is not - however that does not count for much - what counts is coverage. By any reasonable standard (either as a NCRIME or as an act of war on French soil, or just plain old GNG) - this passes at the current coverage level - which is hundreds of articles, world wide, in the past two weeks - and this has persisted throughout the past two weeks.Icewhiz (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Icewhiz: read what I quoted about WP:EVENTCRIT (or just read the whole policy). Also, here are more quotes from yet another page describing why this incident does not qualify for a standalone article: "When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time" and "The second sense of recentism—the creation of a glut of new articles on a recent event—can result in a slap-dash approach to the subject and a rambling, disorganized look to the encyclopedia", both from WP:RECENTISM. It also asks you to employ the WP:10YT, something no keep voters here have done.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This event clearly meets GEOSCOPE, COVERAGE, PERSISTENCE, and DIVERSE. LASTING does require CRYSTALBALLING - as it is two weeks old - thus we have WP:RAPID. RECENTISM (and 10YT) is an essay, not policy - however I'll play ball - yes, in the context of the ISIS/AQ/Jihadist campiagn against France (or Europe) - then at the current level of events this event will be notable in the future either if we see an escalation (to a full blown war/civil strife - in which case it will be cited as the beginning of the conflict) or a return to calm (in which case it will be given as a notable incident (not one of many) that occured during the war).Icewhiz (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is just using inherited notability from the ISIL terror campaign in France overall which doesn't work. Also, ISIL has been attacking the country since 2014. How will this be cited as the beginning of the conflict or a return to calm?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Conflicts are a series of events. As long as the events do not stack up too quickly, then each is notable as each would be mentioned individually in an article covering the donflict and the reader might want to delve into one, or more, in particular. Beyond a certain rate, coverage collapses into casulty lists and counts with occasional human interest stories, alleged atrocities, captivating photos and videos, and coverage of massive events and new tactics and weapons. How do you know when you have progressed to that point? Well, when the coverage collapses to "15 people die in various attacks in France yesterday", buried somewhere in page 11... You are there. When items are still front page news and you have coverage of last week's or last month's events per investigation and trial (as opposed to being ignored as there are no trials, and you are covering today's count anyway) then you are still at a level where individual events are significant both in real time and in ten years time.Icewhiz (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A series of events belong in a list; at least, this one does. You only make a case for why the conflict overall is notable. Certain incidents, like certain battles in wars, merit a standalone page but this one fails guidelines set out by WP:EVENTCRIT. It literally addresses the reason why incidents like these are briefly frontpage news. It looks for post analytical sources or a lasting impact. Not once has anyone addressed that. The policy also urges editors to think differently than the news media but that virtue has been lost by many. WP:RAPID needs to stop being used as an excuse for unnotable subjects having articles. If notability is not established, the article should never be created. A WP:ROUTINE trial and your WP:CRYSTALBALL will not change that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Should we place all civil war battles or WWII campaigns in a list? They are a series of events as well. The question of individual event notability is determined by coverage. Here we have abundant and on-going world-wide coverage (persisting to today - 2 weeks after the event), amply passing notability for this event (even without RAPID). What should guide us is degree of coverage not whether individual editors think an event is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Yet another guideline that outlines why this incident is not notable is WP:RSBREAKING. Since the bulk of the sourcing was published immediately after the attack, this is highly relevant. It says "news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS". For those who do not know, we rely on secondary coverage to gauge notability. That will only possibly (but no WP:CRYSTALBALL) be addressed months from now. Until then, this incident fails our requirements.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that was true then any terrorist attack, or event whatsoever of any scale would be ineligible for an article on Wikipedia for several months. This is getting totally ridiculous. WP:RSBREAKING is also, as other policies I've noted, entirely irrelevant to this article as it only talks about avoiding rumour-based breaking news within "a day or two" of the occurence of an event. There is absolutely nothing about this that is relevant to this article as it stands now, and unless you have anything close to a real argument I'd like to urge you to stop wasting our time with these bogus claims about Wikipedia policies. User2534 (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I wish to add an argument to those persuasively made by User:User2534 and User:Icewhiz. Writing articles on significant events immediately after the event occurs is a highly efficient way to build a reliable and useful encyclopedia. This is true not only for terrorist attacks, but for everything from the 2015 Philadelphia train derailment and this month's Unite the Right rally. The reason is that in the immeditate aftermath of such events, editors rush to contribute. However, when I have created articles on similar events in the past (1996 Paris Métro bombing, 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack, and others) even though I tend to be writing about events that I have either encountered in an academic article or book, it is an uphill slog to put together the sort of details - order of events, collateral damage, details of immediate impact - that rapidly get built in to articles created on breaking news. Creating these articles as events unfold is highly functional.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Terrorism in France. That is the place for minor terrorism incidents involving France. There is nothing especially notable at first glance for this particular attack. Elliot321 (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above, relatively minor and sadly increasingly routine attack, such items are best covered in a list.  Sandstein  08:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempted murder by car-ramming of a dozen French soldiers, a widely public five-hour manhunt and car-chase involving hundreds of police agents, involvement in aftermath by at least three French Ministers. Is this really routine in France? If that's the case I'm sure you can point me to some of the incidents that are just like this that took place recently in France. User2534 (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.