Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson


 * 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 keep. Much of the discussion is spent on discussing the POV of the article, which should happen on the talk page - also, whether the plot was indeed driven by ISIS or not is not really related to notability. Anyhow, it seems like most of the opinions are keeps so going for that Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Single event with no historical significance or lasting notability. Texbook example of WP:NOTNEWS. Another article created by an editor with a history of creating articles that reflect negatively on Muslims or Islam. CrispyGlover (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Crispy; just fyi, it is common courtesy to notify article creator when an article is taken to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not really a big enough event to warrant an article- Almost all the sources are not actually about it. Maybe merge/add a mention of the event under some other article - do we have a 'sectarian violence in Sweden' page this could go on? --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  17:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be misleading. This attack was directed remotely by ISIS, it was not confined to "sectarian violence in Sweden", but, rather, is one of a number of ISIS attacks on Shia communities and mosques worldwide, now sourced in article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In light of these sources and your points, It's clear to me that this ought to be a Keep. --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  04:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: Amusingly, Trump's assertion last winter that this attack was "under-reported" was probably true at the time, but the attack has since undergone several rounds of international coverage: 1.) in response to Trump's remarks, 2.) as part of a wave of international coverage of Islamic violence in what had hitherto been regarded as the peaceful Swedish utopia by an international media that was genuinely shocked by the 2017 Rinkeby riots in February, 3.) as the trial got underway in March 2016 and when it concluded in early June, 2017, 4.) in the context of the May 2017 attack on a mosque near Stockholm, and 5.) in late June 2017 when an arrest in Germany made it clear that this was indeed an ISIS attack.  (That last round of coverage prompted me to write this article. Well, that, plus my horror over course of several years as what I still think of fondly as the idyllic old port town of Malmo descended into third-world levels of crime, smuggling, lawlessness, poverty, and gang violence.) And oh yes, after being acquitted by Swedish courts on all counts, the perp is back in jail and facing a second trial that will inevitably produce a new round of international coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that ISIS quickly claimed this attack, describing it as the Islamic State's first attack in Scandinavia. The claim was dismissed at the time.  But it was true and  is now part of this attack's notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually you need to read the source about the arrest in Germany more carefully. IF proven, it proves that someone in Europe contacted the perp and reported to Amaq AFTER the event. If proven it would show that ISIS have 'reporters'/ verifiers in Europe. There is no suggestion in the source of active involvement in planning the event. Pincrete (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC) … … ps could you please provide a source that the original accused is "is back in jail and facing a second trial", because the source given mentions a different person accused of 'reporting' for Amaq, it says nothing about the original accused. Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Nom's assertion that this attack is a "Texbook example of WP:NOTNEWS" with "no historical significance or lasting notability." serves to demonstrate Nom's utter failure to perform WP:BEFORE, while the remainder of his skimpy justification for deletion demonstrates the WP:IDONTLIKEIT motivation of this nomination.  In fact, this is the inverse of a NOTNEWS event; there was hardly any coverage when this attack occurred, a tiny blip in coverage a couple of weeks later when ISIS claimed it as an historic first,  then, starting about February 2017, a steady drumbeat of international coverage as I detail in my note above.Note also that there will be a second trial and that no coverage in Swedish or languages other than English has yet been added to article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - per extensive national and international coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no keep/delete opinion at present, however the article title is very PoV. The present legal position is that this is not terrorism and therefore cannot be ISIS related. The most recent sources do NOT claim a relationship to ISIS, they merely claim that an individual in Germany has been arrested for 'reporting' and 'verifying' on behalf of ISIS after this -and other - attacks occurred, by contacting individuals on social media. ISIS involvement is therefore at present very questionable. Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In factwhat sources state is that after a Swedish court acquitted the perp despite the fact that he had ISIS flags and similar all over his personal computer and online footprint. then, in June 2017 an ISIS operative was arrested in Germany and German police released information showing that the ISIS operative was in regular contact with the terrorist who committed the  Malmo arson attack before the attack took place and immediately after the event.  Perp claimed to be carrying out the attack on behalf of ISIS and teh known ISIS operative immediately claimed credit for the attack online via Amaq News Agency.  It's all in article linked fomr page.  Here's a snippet form the New York Times story "this does show that they clearly have someone, who is one of their guys, and who is getting verification and confirming that this attack was in our name."E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * What the man in Germany is accused of is contacting AFTER the event to verify, not "being in regular contact with' as you claim: Mohammad G. contacted his source after the attack to confirm details of what had happened, according to the statement. .... Another expert says: There was an assumption all along that at least a small chunk of ISIS media is run by people in the West,” said Amarnath Amarasingam, ..... “This is an interesting confirmation of something people always suspected. So it’s quite important. ... running a media operation for ISIS does not mean running a terrorist operation for ISIS. Nor is there anywhere any suggestion that the original perp has been or will ever be re-tried (is that even possible in Swedish law?).


 * The whole quote you give a 'snippet' of is "“We’ve all assumed that they are reading news reports, and then saying, ‘Our guy did this.’ But this is interesting because this does show that they clearly have someone, who is one of their guys, and who is getting verification and confirming that this attack was in our name” .... "in our name" does not mean done by us nor with our involvement. … 'One of their guys' refers to the verifier, not the perp … this is a single speculation by a single individual at this stage. However you are happy to present it as fact in WP's voice both here and in the article and the title. Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * go back and reread. they were in regular contact before the attack, an attack that security services and security analysts are taking as demonstrating not only that the speedy, post attack  Amaq claims that have been as regularly initially doubted as they have been speediy verified, are actually the consequence of ISIS inistigated, inspired and directed attacks that Amaq and other ISIS websites claim witamazing speed and accuracy because they were in contackt with the attackers.  PINCRETE, we can all see that you WP:DONTLIKEIT, but you WP:DISRUPT discussions when you repeatedly make claims without reading the sources carefully.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if what you say were true (which it plainly isn't), when did an - as yet untested - allegation, become an established fact to be stated in WP voice. Guilty until proven innocent? Pincrete (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Would an uninvolved editor please read the above and verify whether this source does indeed confirm that ....  "the subsequent arrest of an Amaq News Agency operative in Germany demonstrated that the attack was directed by the Islamic State" . The edit has BLP implications in that it effectively claims that a person is guilty, whom a Swedish court has found innocent and a person in Germany is guilty who has not yet been tried.Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we keep the talk on whether to change the name confined to said article's talk page, instead of here?--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  23:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion between Pincrete and Gregory is more about whether or not the sources are being expressed accurately and appropriately in the article. There looks like there could be serious BLP issues and false claims made in the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is that really relevant to the discussion of notability? --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  23:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion on the talk page. /Julle (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * it depends. If you read into the incident as it stands now, the arson was not terror related (or at least has not been confirmed by RS). Do you consider an act of arson that caused no casaulties, minor damage, and had no long-term WP:LASTING impact as notable?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd still see it as notable due to the accusations of ISIS involvement, and the Trump link.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  04:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In my own defence, I was concerned that false claims made here (eg "The perp is back in jail and facing a second trial that will inevitably produce a new round of international coverage") and in the article (that there is now proof of ISIS involvement), could affect the outcome of this discussion. Having made that point, I will continue on talk.) Pincrete (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In my own defence, I was concerned that false claims made here (eg "The perp is back in jail and facing a second trial that will inevitably produce a new round of international coverage") and in the article (that there is now proof of ISIS involvement), could affect the outcome of this discussion. Having made that point, I will continue on talk.) Pincrete (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The evidence for this being an ISIS terror attack was tested in court and found wanting. This hasn't been treated as a major event of international importance in Malmö, where it happened. I see few sign of lasting relevance. But that's always difficult to see so soon, of course, so I could be mistaken. /Julle (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You MISSED the recent international news story, sourced her to a major story in the New York Times that emerged AFTER the trial ended demonstrating that this was an ISIS attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that I missed it as that I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't label something an ISIS attack based on an in court untested statement from a prosecutor, reported in another language in a newspaper on another continent. I wouldn't call that verified, nor – at the moment – verifiable. /Julle (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2017 (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.