Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Arras attack


 * 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 speedy keep. Consensus is to keep per WP:SNOW. Philg88 ♦talk 15:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Arras attack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable per WP:NNEWS. User created article immediately after event was reported. At best this is too soon. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   18:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Created article following dead link on Jean-Hugues_Anglade Unibond (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * keep Significant terrorist attack Tough sailor ouch (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment i think we should wait some time to determine if NOTNEWS applies. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 20:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we should really wait several days before making a final decision about keeping this article or not. We don't know if it's a terrorist attack. More info and sources will arrive in the next days. --Deansfa (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a terrorist attack, plain and simple. A known suspect brings automatic weapons into a train and starts trying to kill people, stopped by U.S. troops. Only thing plainer would be a bomb. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This user's first edit was to this AfD, and most of their edits are to this article, this nomination, or related pages. Sandra: What difference does the nationality of the people who thwarted the attack make? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

*Wait, leaning keep. Allow time for details to come out. Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * moving my "vote to KEEP - The perpetrator was known to the authorities. A Wikinotable person was involved. Likely changes to operation of high-speed trains in the Shengen area is being talked of. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably Keep but far too soon for an AFD. ( Three US Marines take down active shooter on a train in France? I'm looking into my crystal ball and I can see little probability of this story failing WP:GNG.)  If it's a deranged individual, it may not be notable, but if there is a terrorism link, it almost certainly will be retained.  Either way, this debate is premature.   Nom might want to withdraw, and revisit this after the dust has settled.  Since neither I nor anyone else  has an actual crystal ball, it is far too soon to gauge notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Moreover, deletion tags on the page about significan breaking news stories have the primary impact of making Wikipedia look weird, almost goofball, certainly not like a responsible source of information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep We should leave it up for a while until we know it's not significant. --Article editor (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete it's news. Wikipedia is not a news station. Articles like this add zero value over and above what is already available on 24 hour media across the world. What a complete waste of time copying out news articles. Encyclopedia can and should wait. -- ℕ  ℱ  22:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * News sources now saying that the shooter was known to French security services. There is a routine way of treating incidents of this type, see 2015 Chattanooga shootings for the routine manner in which shooting incidents are routinely started as the news breaks, and kept.  And this shooter is not dead.  There will be a trial, ongoing coverage, coverage of probation proposal in a few years.  This story won't fail notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to wait until notability is established. There's no time limits here. If anyone is desperate to know the details of this incident, they will be already well served by news media - why on earth is an encyclopedia trying to compete with that? -- ℕ  ℱ  22:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I came to Wikipedia to read about it because I knew someone would have an article. The French government is saying it is a terrorist attack and it really is one, not just some government official talking about a wannabe terrorist buying some stuff from an undercover agent that has nothing to sell. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait (keep for now) - I don't really like having current events articles this soon after the first reports, but since it's already here, we should let it be until things are more clear. One possible argument for keeping it for good is the involvement of a WP:Notable person within the wider incident. ansh 666 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Apparent failed terrorist attack. Significant international news coverage. Michael5046 (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (as distinct from NNEWS which also applies). This is a run of the mill small scale terrorist attack with no fatalities. Even the most minor of such incidents tends to gain mountains of news coverage at least briefly, but that is not the only criteria per WP:EVENT. Most importantly this is very unlikely to have any lasting effects. It is also highly unlikely that news coverage will last more than a couple of days at the most. My guess is that by tomorrow it will have been dropped from the front page everywhere except in France. Not every terrorist incident is notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This is exactly the type of thing that Wikinews was meant for. If it turns out this is expected to have a much larger impact at the world at large, we can recreate then, but run the mill incidents do not need articles. --M ASEM (t) 01:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To add, those saying that GNG is met, there are no secondary sources yet for the story; newspaper articles that are recounting the events are primary sources. There's no sources that show analysis and transformation of impact on the event to the world at large. So this fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. --M ASEM (t) 14:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably delete per Ad Orientem. Versus001 (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is a address for information about terrorist attacks --85.180.131.110 (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This is far too early to be AFDing an article on a recent event - the shooter's motivations are not yet fully known and the political ramifications in Europe are not fully known. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on shootings considered terrorist attacks. -- Callinus (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In relation to other issues, please see this Reuters aritcle:"Since the January attacks in Paris there have been other incidents. In June, a suspected Islamist beheaded his boss and tried to blow up a U.S-owned industrial gas plant in the suburbs of Lyon. And in July, French officials said they had prevented an attack on a senior French military official by arresting four people whose leader had links to jailed jihadists... The Belgian government is considering taking extra security measures, a spokesman said."


 * There is encyclopedic interest in assessing the outcomes of the security response after the 2015 Île-de-France attacks in terms of their efficacy and cost. -- Callinus (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - too early for AfD. ´this as this point passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, per Ansh666. This might be worth deleting later, but it's not so obviously open-and-shut that we should delete it while the story is developing and is the subject of an ITN nomination. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a case of when we should follow policy and not rush to delete news items. We don't know the lasting effect yet. What we do know is fairly monumental, that two guys probably prevented a mass shooting that would have killed dozens if not hundreds. The guy had at least 300 rounds and the people were fish in a barrel with nowhere to go. I think the two guys are going to be feted for quite awhile, and I would not be surprised if there was additional fallout such as some kind of metal detector or at least extra security installed for trains. —Мандичка YO 😜 09:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: The people who resolved this attack were given medals and congratulated by world leaders. This is not an everyday crime by any means &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite clearly meets WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * speedy Keep. The nomination was premature, and it is clear that this a very notable event as less than 30 seconds of effort shows it meets WP:GNG with ease. I would support a policy of speedily keeping all AfDs for potentially notable events nominated per WP:NOTNEWS (or similar rationales) within 12 hours of the event happening. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we get an admin to snow close this one? Looks like nominator is not going to withdraw, and this will be a highly trafficked article. (Template looks terrible) —Мандичка YO 😜 13:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is not an everyday crime, but a potential terrorist attack that was reported by worldwide medias.Christo jones (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The incident is notable per WP:GNG and there are obvious alternatives to deletion per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.