Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I feel in the prior AfD, everyone was distracted by the pressing issues of POV and WP:SYNTH which prevented a meaningful discussion of the notability of the article. Technically, this article still has issues because the person responsible was cleared of all charges, including arson -- making the title incorrect. Regardless, for a fire that caused minimal damage (smoked-stained windows and walls) and no casualties, there isn't any WP:LASTING societal impact. There is no WP:INDEPTH analysis and the brief blimps in the news reeks of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Trump's list can also not be used to establish significant coverage since it merely mentions the incident with 77 other attacks and according to Swedish courts this wasn't terror or arson. Most sources are now outdated or incorrect, an issue that happens with news-inspired articles. There isn't anything to merge since officially no crime ever occurred.
 * Closing as speedy keep so everyone can return to civil editing. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging editors from the prior AfD and talk page discussion:, , , , , , and . Please focus your comments on the notability of this article now that some clean-up was directed. Anyone else is, of course, free to contribute.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ping, a highly experienced creator of AfD discussions, to format this page properly so that the recent AfD appears in the usual box at top of discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note - Here is the prior AfD: Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage is, in my mind, a little more than just news - it is mentioned, as EM Gregory pointed out previously, in many articles written a while after the fact.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  04:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for revisiting this. I hope you realize merely mentioning an event existed does not make it notable. I urge you to read my rationale above and the corresponding policies. Most of the sources are not reliably reporting the incident and are, in fact, WP:ROUTINE news coverage. If you can distinguish a significant WP:LASTING impact (the Trump list is out since it is a passing mention and incorrect) or post-analysis that confirms WP:INDEPTH, I will happily withdraw this nomination.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - the coverage of this event goes beyond the day it happened. This goes beyond NOTNEWS. A previous AfD was concluded less than a month ago, POV pushingusually does not result in anything.BabbaQ (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * yes and I explained quite clearly why I renominated it. Going beyond the day it happened still doesn't save it from NOTNEWS, especially since the sources are no longer reliable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that it is highly irregular to bring to AfD an article that was closed as Keep less than a month ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a highly POV nomination, which follows a highly POV rewrite of the article by editor Pincrete. WP:HEY, I have cleaned the article up, to make the facts, chronology  and context clear.  Note in particular that a suspect was cleared at trial for insufficient evidence.  But that after the verdict was handed down, investigators in Germany arrested an ISIS operative making role of ISIS and guilt of suspect clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Another key fact removed from the article is the fact that perp was not released after being acquitted. WP:HEY I have now added sourced description of his transfer fromm police to security services after the trial concluded to be investigated for ties to ISIS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This s the 1.) First terrorist attack by the Islamic State on Swedish soil. 2.) The fact that perp was acquitted is irrelevant because article was written after the acquittal when the arrest of a ISIS operative in Germany produced dramatic new evidence about the ISIS connection to this attack. Notability  comes largely from the ISIS connection, 3.) Suspect was transferred form Police custody to custody of Swedish Security Services to be investigated for ties to ISIS when trial ended, even before the new evidence surfaced in Germany, and 4.) evidence about the connection between ISIS operative "Mohammad G." and the Malmo perp has provided new information on the way ISIS incites and confirms attacks that makes the events in this article significant not simply as an attack in Sweden, but as pert of a far larger body of work by investigators, terrorism analysts, and students of radicalization working to understand how jihad groups like ISIS instigate crimes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What you call my 'very PoV edit' had the support of every editor that looked at your sources E.M.Gregory. Your statements that the new 'German' arrest proves anything other than an ISIS reporter have no one's support and have been removed. Proper place to discuss content is talk page. If you want to write an article about the German arrest, do so, not use this as a coatrack, but at the moment there is even less printed about it than about 'Malmo'. Pincrete (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This has been 1.) Ruled by a Swedish court to have not been not terrorism and therefore not ISIS, only E.M.Gregory thinks otherwise 2.) The fact that perp was acquitted is only thing that is relevant ..... the arrest of a ISIS reporter in Germany cannot overturn a court decision, nor can E.M.Gregory and the acquitted person is entitled to WP's BLP protection. Pincrete (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoa Editors should look at the description and sourcing in this version of the article; material deleted by Pincrete in his alternative fact version.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Shenanigans also that User:TheGracefulSlick withdrew and closed this discussion a few hours ago, then returned and put the article back in place.


 * Keep I am sorry but this one appears to be notable as it has received coverage beyond the timeframe of the attack. So is there a connection to ISIS? I see no concrete link based on the sources used but this is a WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issue that can be resolved on the article's talk-page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion at these discussions more than just about anyone else which is why I urge you to re-analyze the article. This article is partially about an arson that is not considered terrorism in Swedish courts and partially about an arrest that cannot be conclusively connected. I would say the arrest of the German ISIS agent is more notable than the arson. Most of the sources are no longer factually correct since they discussed this incident as a terror attack.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing problematic with including RS reports about a crime in an article, while shaping the article, as I believe that I did, in accord with legal developments and emergence of new facts over time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When I heard Donald Trump mention this Sweden thing I was glad it was swept under the rug as it appeared to be nothing. In this source though it states: "“Specifically, Mohammed G had been in contact with a person who committed an arson attack on a Shia community centre in Sweden on 11 October, by mid-September at the latest." Wouldn't this be considered a reliable source? Even if ISIS wasn't involved the Sweden arson incident was brought up again which makes it harder to dismiss it as being non notable. I am open for convincing but reading that source was a factor for me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * my take on it is, according to the source I provided in my rationale, there wasn't even a conviction for arson, let alone terrorism. The article seems to rely on the possible connection with "Mohammed G.". If the only thing notable about this is G., shouldn't the article be about him, not a technical arson that caused minimal damage? Gregory's statement that this was the first terror attack in Sweden is both not a claim for notability and is false according to Swedish courts. Unless he has some higher judicial powers that reverse court decisions, I'm not sure the article is focusing on the correct incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think that WP:COVERAGE would apply here given these sources are long after the event and initial coverage took place? I agree on the WP:SYNTH as just because someone is in contact doesn't make them guilty. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Nothing new here. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I'm not quite clear on what the article is about -- is it about the arson, or is it about the arrest of a ISIS reporter? If it's about the arson, then it's a pointless article, as the damage was minimal and the alleged perpetrator acquitted. Wikipedia does not have articles on such minor crimes. If it's about the arrest in Germany, then make an article about that event (not sure if it meeds Wikipedia's notability guidelines though). As the article stands now it's WP:SYNTH and should not be kept. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * K.e., This article is about an arson fire in 2016; a trial where suspect was not convicted due to lack of evidence connecting him to the arson; how the suspect was transferred from the police to the Swedish Security Service where he is under investigation for ties to ISIS; and it is about how, after the trial ended, the German Security Services arrested Amaq News Agency an ISIS propagandist and released information demonstrating links between this arson attack and ISIS, and making this particular arson attack notable for the insight it gave to security analysts because it so clearly established the manner in which an ISIS operative in Germany was involved in inciting series of major terrorist attacks in several countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep There's a pattern of arsons, especially in this particular community. I say keep because this and other events like it in same community, have a lasting negative impact on relations between immigrants and locals. The see also section lists the others: Malmö Synagogue attacks, Malmö Mosque attacks, 2014 mosque arson attacks in Sweden, Arson attacks on asylum centres in Sweden. It seems like a pretty important social issue when mosques and synagogues continue to be set on fire. This community "Malmo has become the power-center for the far right Sweden Democrats" NPR the eloquent peasant (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Noticed this discussion on a talk page I watch. Amply meets GNG. Article issues can and should be addressed, however, especially concerning culpability and acquittal of primary suspect. Coretheapple (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)