Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Buckingham Palace incident


 * 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. Opinion is split over whether this article meets WP:NOTNEWS. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Buckingham Palace incident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a news item, and is not notable of inclusion of being on Wikipeida. Wikipeida appears to have a problem with recentism when it comes to articles involving incidents of this nature. There appears to be a jump to create articles, and to attribute labels to incidents, long before any of is has been established. The threshold for WP:Notability is not met here. There needs to be a halt to all these kinds of news articles, appearing as if they are somehow instantly notable. This is not notable, this is simply a news story.

There will be claims throughout the discussion of this incident, that this being part of the wider x or y or Z. This is not good enough to simply be claimed it must be shown by independent and reliable third party sources, demonstrating more than routine coverage. Simply shouting words does not make someone an extremist. Simply being a member of a religion and a criminal does not make someone a religious extremist. Simply attacking soldiers does not make an incident terrorism. Stating those things equal Radical Islamic Terrorism, is Original Research and is synthesis both of which are not allowed on Wikpedia. This article has a problem, it biggest problem is that it was created in the first place, as this is just routine coverage of a crime. Until further notability is established this has no place on Wikiepida. Sport and politics (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: It may be possible to argue that the location of this incident makes it just about notable, but that may be stretching things. At present we don't know enough about the circumstances of what happened, the motive, the backgrounds of those involved, and so on, to comment on the nature of this incident, and it would have been better to have waited before creating an article. I agree that people are too quick to label these incidents as terrorism because someone shouted something or some individual is arrested or prosecuted under some aspect of terrorism law, and it's a debate we're going to need to have at some point in the not too distant future. How does Wikipedia describe these incidents, and when is it appropriate to create such an article are two important factors in that discussion. I am happy to add my thoughts if anyone is willing to start that debate at the appropriate place. This is Paul (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Could it go in the list Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)? Obvious problem would be a lack of confirmation that it was an Islamist attack, although it seems likely. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:LASTING as no long-term impact can be traced from sources in a WP:ROUTINE news cycle. I agree with Sport and politics: WP:RECENTISM is a major issue ignored by writers (many "experienced" longstanding wikipedians) even at the expense of almost every single guideline policing inclusion. This article, in addition to lasting, fails WP:EVENTCRIT which specifically mentions violent crimes are of interest to news media but not always Wikipedia. It needs historic or long-term importance, both of which are not established.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Slick, Although LASTING impact is great, it is NOT required, and, of course, it is impossible to establish in a recent event. More to the point here is WP:NOTNEWS:  "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - and less that 12 hours after creation of this page, the BBC announces today the suspect «remains in custody under suspicion of terror offences.» . Reuters says the same thing. .  Guys, the international coverage on this story is significant (covered not just by British media but US [WSJ, Washington Post, et al.], Australia, France, Spain, etc).  It is absolutely WP:CRYSTALBALL to presume that what as of almost a week later continues to be considered a terror investigation will be dismissed as a routine event.  Come back after the investigation exonerates the attacker, and I will be the first to propose the encyclopaedic entry needs be deleted, but for the time being, there is no justification.XavierItzm (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The argument of Wait and see is the wrong way round. This is merely routine news coverage, a follow up on a crime is just that a follow up. Follow-ups by news organisations of news stories do not elevate events to a notable status. Sport and politics (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Some users may think this is a crime. Yet the British government considers it terrorism.  If terrorism in London is not notable, then what is?  XavierItzm (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: If terrorism in London is not notable, then what is?, it depends on the terrorism, if the incident has no lasting impact or coverage, it isn't notable. Conversely, children stealing apples from their neighbour can become notable if for some reason there is lasting impact or extended coverage. There is no guideline saying that anything terrorist-related is automatically notable whereas stealing apples isn't. Incidentally he is provisionally charged with "preparing to commit an act … of terrorism". Pincrete (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - per WP:RAPID. Wide coverage is continuing today (the 30th) -    . Probably due to the sword(Jack Churchill anyone?). Current coverage is such that it should be kept - and if needed reassessed in a few months.Icewhiz (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * do you have a policy-based reason to keep? WP:RAPID is simply a recommendation and more of a cop-out to avoid discussing the major issues with the article. Per WP:RSBREAKING and WP:ROUTINE -- actual policies -- the media coverage does not signify notability. If sourcing with significant analysis weeks from now emerges, we can create a more thorough article, not a rehashing of media reports. This "let's wait" strategy does the encyclopedia no good and ignores the call for notability now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean BREAKING, which RAPID is a sub part (post creation). RSBREAKING asserts we should use later sources when available. Regarding ROUTINE - sword attacks in the modern UK are not routine (perhaps they were in the 16th century). Items that are front page news in the world or on a national level are not routine (they still might not be notable). Notability is determined by coverage, not opinion. In this case we have coverage, yet we do not know yet if it will be LASTING because enough time from the event did not pass, hence RAPID.Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017, low casualty attack, although incident was considered terrorism, it was (presumably) a failed attack. Not every attack that occurs in Europe is suitable for a wikipedia article.JBergsma1 (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I realize this is yet another lost cause by me in attempting to follow our policies, but could you at least take the time to write out a thoughtful vote? You simply rehashed "sources indicate notability" three times in rapid succession on AfDs. It instills zero confidence in me that you actually read other arguments, policies related to this type of incident, and the actual article itself. As an admin, shouldn't you be leading by example by upholding a high standard at all forums of Wikipedia? A refresher on our policies will show this falls under WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:LASTING, WP:DIVERSE, and WP:EVENTCRIT so sources do not indicate notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * International coverage continuing today (31st) - Newsweek 9news.au Times of Israel Fox news USA Today - and much more (picked these at random from non-UK English sources). The sources are there. Frankly - this is exactly the sort of AfD where waiting makes sense - as ongoing high-profile coverage is continuing from the moment of the event clearling meeting WP:SIGCOV, the only concern is WP:LASTING due to age of event. 6 months from now? Maybe yes, maybe no - though the "sword angle" probably will at least preserve it as an oddity mention.Icewhiz (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is more general news coverage and not an establishment of notability. Waving news outlets and going look look international, when then internet is a thing, does not show the breadth of sources and independent verification required to establish independent notability. Three of the sources the Fox News, the 9news, and Times of Israel sources, simply re-published an AP/AFP news story.Sport and politics (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We again see the consequences of premature AFD: an inability to properly assess the sources. As of today 2 September, the sources include: Sky News Wall Street Journal USA Today BBC The Telegraph Metro The Scottish Sun The Washington Post The Guardian Reuters Newsweek AFP New York Magazine Paris Match XavierItzm (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A list of news sources, routinely reporting a news story. There's a shock Sport and politics (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Extensive national and international coverage of attack, sword, and indictment for terrorism meet WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Extenisve is a stretch. Also jumping on a charge does not elevate to notable status Sport and politics (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This claim is unfounded and disputed. Personal comments on personal user talk pages. Sport and politics (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Personal comments on personal user talk pages please. Accusations are not welcome. Sport and politics (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON is an appropriate point of caution to raise in a discussion such as this if that type of behaviour is prevalent. But I don't think anyone's reached the giddy heights of WP:BLUDGEON in this particular debate. This is Paul (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Note Just added today's reported, WP:SIGCOV of this incident in the Wall Street Journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors should Note that there are shenanigans going on with this page, an editor is repeatedly removing both the reported article in today's Wall Street Journal and the newly emerged details sourced to it. And also removing details (like the fact that perp was an Uber driver who had intended to to attack Windsor Castle, but followed his GPS to the  wrong address, a silly detail but one the the American press is having a field day with,   Did you hear the one about the Uber driver who wanted to attack Windsor Castle with a sword and murder the Queen, but his GPS took him to this pub called Windsor Castle so dude ended up attacking... ) but editor is also removing significant information released by police, such as information from his laptop and note to his family establishing that this was  jihad/Islamism inspired terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I presume Gregory is not-so-cleverly referring to you. Do you wish to respond to these allegations which, I must remind Gregory, have no place at an AfD? I should also remind Gregory he is just building another case for ANI with his muddying of yet another AfD discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, I was just editing my response as you wrote that. -- de Facto (talk). 21:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * no, I reverted your controversial changes per WP:BRD, and asked you to discuss them on the talk page before reinstating them. You ignored my request and reinstated much of your controversial edit anyway, and even worse, you characterised my edit as vandalism! -- de Facto (talk). 20:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Finally coming down on the side of delete after several days of careful consideration. This article fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH. It simply shouldn't be here. This is Paul (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017. Insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article; fails WP:NOTNEWS. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep  - Extensive international and national coverage for this. Good sources. Article is in good shape as well.BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:EVENTCRITERIA this is an unremarkable news event: the most we can say is that a man was apparently stopped by police and put up a bit of a struggle whilst being arrested. The press interest is possibly because of the headline possibilities made available by the incident having took place near Buckingham Palace and the arrested man apparently having a sword in his car. But will the incident have enduring historical significance or a significant lasting effect? Unlikely, at best. -- de Facto (talk). 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, "we can say" what a WP:RS do say, which is that perp "deliberately drove into police officers near Buckingham Palace" in a failed vehicle-ramming attack that was stopped by police, that he pulled a sword on the arresting officers, and that his actions are being investigated as terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fox is the only source claiming that he "drove into" anyone, least of all 'police officers' (pretty obviously they would have been seriously injured if he had). Most sources report that he 'drove at' a stationary police van, but stopped in front of it. No mention of police stopping him (bit hard to stop a large moving vehicle with your bare hands). Maybe there was an intention to ram the van but he 'bottled out', maybe we don't know so Fox invented a story it preferred. Fox also doesn't seem to notice that it is difficult to "pull a sword" when in the driving seat of a car. Most sources record "reached for a sword" which was under the passenger seat, at which point he was 'overcome' by the three police. We usually try to record what the balance of best sources say, not embellish the worst. Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Per, he reached for what we now know to be a 4ft sword which was in the front passenger footwell. - So not under the seat, in front of the seat. It is actually to pull a 4-foot sword (which is on the short side) quite quickly - had he stepped out of the car - however it is pretty useless considering he (it seems) remained seated inside the car. Either way - the actual attempt to use a sword (as well as the ineptness in navigating/executing and Uber involvement) - will probably generate more coverage to the already quite substantial coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In which car can a rigid 4 foot long anything be in the passenger footwell without a goodly part of it being under the seat, (unless they mean 'propped up')? In which car can someone sitting in the driver seat 'brandish', 'swing' or 'draw' any 4 foot long rigid object? I'm glad you acknowledge this is silly-story territory, personally I secretly hope this is a 'keep', since it will advertise how absurd WP practice has become on terrorism articles. Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width? Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources Notability, of course, can come from any angle, even Uber. Here is Sarah Baxter, The Sunday Times: That’s the last time Uber gives me the runaround .E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per everyone else. 100s of sources repeating exactly the same mildly funny story is no substitute for extended, in-depth coverage, even the police aren't sure whether this is terrorism. There will of course be some lasting impact, since the event is almost guaranteed to feature in end-of-year quizzes (about the Satnav Samurai or the Lost Samurai who got Castled on his way Uber to the Palace? ... No? Well there's a lot of time between now and Dec 31st 2017!). Pincrete (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is no hurry. Every article can't be a FA class-article but there are enough sources for stub-class article.  Greenbörg  (talk)  09:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The condition and size of an article are irrelevant to the issues with notability. I keep seeing arguments that "there is no hurry"; true, if we're talking about clean-up but there is a bit of a hurry for the subject to be notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This topic will never be notable, and I doubt anything's going to change that, so there's no hurry to do anything, except perhaps delete yet another article that was created far too soon. This is Paul (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. The fact is that there is a remarkable amount of reporting on the page now, not echoes, WP:SIGCOV]] by papers on this side of the pond, like the Wall Street Journal.  And while no recent WPNCRIME can meet  WP:EVENTCRITERIA: WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WPLASTING, the sourcing already on the page more than meets   [[WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought up those policies. WP:GEOSCOPE notes coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article; instead a significant impact on a large region is required. What was that region -- the suspect's car? To pass WP:INDEPTH, a subject needs analysis which has not been found in these WP:ROUTINE reports. WP:DIVERSE is not met when sources simply repeat the same narrative. So basically you have proven this incident fails every single point laid out by WP:EVENTCRIT...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 04:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, or, if this is kept, turn Wikipedia into a news site rather than an encyclopedia. News reports are regarded everywhere outside Wikipedia as primary sources, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear IP, Like ALL articles on recent events, this one one is sourced to WP:RS news media. Books and academic articles may well follow, but are they not required.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear E.M., like most articles on recent events this is a news report rather than an encyclopedia article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't see a clear consesus to delete or keep. I still think this event is notable per WP:NEVENT. I don't agree with IP because we write here with encyclopedic point of view whereas on WikiNews we write as news story.  Greenbörg  (talk)  15:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This does read like a news story. Just remove the headers and you have a poor man's version of a CNN or New York Times piece. There were two keep voters who said "good sources" (very broad and mostly untrue if we care to follow anything from WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RSBREAKING, etc.); another common response was WP:RAPID but those voters ignored the remainder of EVENTCRIT -- the actual meat of the policy. Since AfD is not a majority vote and any admin will notice the issues I identified here, yes, there is a clear consensus: it is to delete this article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, several sources indicate notability with national and international coverage. D8jang (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "notability with national and international coverage" = Many newspapers printed almost the same story on the first day(s) with no 'follow up' or depth = almost perfect definition of a news story, completely lacking significance or impact. Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pincrete, your assertion is inaccurate. Independently reported articles ran in major publications on at least three continents.  The independently reported WP:INDEPTH coverage in the Wall Street Journal that ran a week after the initial attack, and article that you tried very hard to delete as a source on non policy-based grounds, and the reporting by the Dhaka Tribune on perp's birthplace and bio are particularly good examples of the WP:SIGCOV.  Moreover,  there were at least two news cycles that generated worldwide coverage, the first spurred first by the attack itself, then by the black humor angle uber-driver-on-jihad-fails-to-google-up-directions-to-the-right-palace.  You are entitled to you own opinion, but not to your own facts.(quoting Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan).E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The earliest ref used saying anything about this incident is 27th August, the newest is 8th September, Dhaka Tribune! I think that is legitimately "the first day(s) with no 'follow up' or depth", if you really want to stretch it to "the first -nearly- two weeks with no 'follow up' or depth", be my guest. If the coverage were 'in depth', why is the article so desperately thin? What might the lasting impact be I wonder, perhaps it will get harder to buy Samurai swords in Luton, maybe the pub will get increased trade, end of year quizzes are a near certainty. Are they your idea of 'in-depth coverage'? Pincrete (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 04:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no lasting significance or societal impact; it's clear at this point. The lead of the article states:
 * "The police officers were slightly injured whilst making the arrest."
 * This is an incident insufficiently notable for the encyclopedia; does not meet WP:10YT. I'm not buying the argument that because it took place in London, we must include it. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This was run-of-the-mill news, people break into Buckingham Palace grounds all the time. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - no lasting repercussions or notability, can perhaps be included in a larger article but not as a stand alone. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of terrorist incidents in London - No huge lasting impacts. Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 11 years 19:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To this point: it can't be merged. On the List of terrorist incidents in London, two editors persistently delete     the Buckingham Palace attack entry because «only suspected to be terrorism related, needs a court verdict to confirm it was».  Observe the 3RR rule is not even followed.  So if the resolution is merge, then editors are on standby to simply memory-hole the whole entry, sources and all.XavierItzm (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep There is nothing "routine" or "run-of-the-mill" about a terrorist incident outside Buckingham Palace. NOTNEWS does not apply in this case.Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- probably could be added to List of terrorist incidents in London, but not notable enough to deserve its own page at all. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a Wikipedia entry for all the other incidents in "Category:Terrorist incidents in London in 2017." Soperd (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing seems to have made this any more notable since I last posted in this discussion, so it's still a delete for me. Perhaps we can merge with List of terrorist incidents in London. Or what about something like List of Buckingham Palace security breaches (along the lines of the the one we have for the White House)? I can think of at least three other incidents in recent years that could be mentioned in such an article, and I guess this is probably worth a brief mention somewhere. This is Paul (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Case remains in the news media as of mid-September: with the latest terror attack at Parsons Green, the media lists the Buckingham Palace sword attack among the recent «stream of terror attacks» in the UK. I think the point of an encyclopaedia is that you are reading something, say, a newspaper, and perhaps you don't know what they are talking about, and you go to Wikipedia, and boom, guess what?  There is an article about that "Buckingham Palace" terror incident!  Now you know. XavierItzm (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to closing editor that as XavierItzam points out, proposals to merge terrorism-related incidents are often merely stealth deletions. When an editor closes a terrorist attack with the suggestion as keep with the suggestion the decision whether to merge or keep can be discussed at the article's talk page, deletionist editors will attempt to delete by will open a merge discussion, which is likely to draw fewer editors than and AfD (a recent example is 2017 Notre Dame attack).  However, when an article on a terrorism attack is closed as merge, deletionist editors at the lists to which incidents are merged either argue that only bluelinked incident should be kept, or that a particular incident is not adequately verified as terrorism (as here) or that too few people were killed, and delete it.  That is why the decision should be based on WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG, and by the same standards by which we judge recent breaking news stories such as the 2017 University of Utah Hospital incident.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well-sourced article on a matter that attracted interest well beyond national borders. Passes WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * actually when an incident such as this falls under WP:NOT, it doesn't meet GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:POINT ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  17:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - No argument whatsoever provided, and is ascribing a motive. This is is no way anything other the a !vote Sport and politics (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A notvote is not an official policy, but WP:point is. WP:point states that you should not disrupt WP to make a point. I think you are disrupting WP to make a point, and therefore I think that all of your contributions to articles related to terrorism should be held under strict scrutiny, and when necessary wholly dismissed as disruptive and unproductive. Your motive is clearly established by the excessive amounts of circumstantial evidence available showing that you do in fact go around WP attempting to remove terrorism related content to make a point, effectively accepting that you cannot get the content you don't like removed through one means, and trying to get it removed via another. I'll note you have been entirely ineffective in your XFD attempts, that being because you are only editing to make a WP:point or otherwise you just don't like WP covering terrorism, for whatever personal reasons. But, yeah. And you don't need to accuse anyone of notvotes because the closing party will surely be able to analyze the content themselves. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  03:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A way to sum this up is, your past disruptive behavior has led to the burden of proof being raised for your XFDs, because good faith cannot be assumed in your contributions to articles of this topic. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  03:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sport, You nominated, what, about 20 was it? Islamist terrorist attacks for deletion in one fall swoop a couple of weeks ago. Did all of the others close as keep?  I seem to recall that they did.  And your justification for the nomination of this one was a WP:POINTY rant:

''"This is a news item, and is not notable of inclusion of being on Wikipeida. Wikipeida appears to have a problem with recentism when it comes to articles involving incidents of this nature.' There appears to be a jump to create articles, and to attribute labels to incidents, long before any of is has been established. The threshold for WP:Notability is not met here. There needs to be a halt to all these kinds of news articles, appearing as if they are somehow instantly notable. This is not notable, this is simply a news story. There will be claims throughout the discussion of this incident, that this being part of the wider x or y or Z. This is not good enough to simply be claimed it must be shown by independent and reliable third party sources, demonstrating more than routine coverage. Simply shouting words does not make someone an extremist. Simply being a member of a religion and a criminal does not make someone a religious extremist. Simply attacking soldiers does not make an incident terrorism. Stating those things equal Radical Islamic Terrorism, is Original Research and is synthesis both of which are not allowed on Wikpedia. This article has a problem, it biggest problem is that it was created in the first place, as this is just routine coverage of a crime.''"

I note in particular that your asssertions are false. In particular, the editors who regularly work on articles about terrorist attacks, editors who have iVoted both ways above, are extremely careful not accuse perps of terrorism until and unless they have written manifestos, recorded pledges ot ISIS, been described as ISIS by security authorities, and so forth. It is true that new and occassional editors add such material, but it is rapidly removed. Moreover, this article, and the others that have been kept, have been reliably sourced. And your assertion that ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  made no valid argument is similarly false, WP:POINTY is an excellent argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on failing to focus on the nomination, it is clearly not point, the numerous and in depth deletion arguments forwarded show POINT is an ad homenim. I do wish Gregory and friends would avoid doing their shtick of go after nominators and people who disagree with them, and crawl out of the gutter. Sport and politics (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be prudent to stick to the subject on hand, and it also would be nice if we avoided claiming Keep voters are coming from the gutter, which seems a bit personal (I do think I took a shower in the past year). Regarding the POINT raised, this: AFD stats for 15 last Sport and politics noms - and the time spent on some of them - speaks volumes.Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Add this to a long history of claiming false persecution when people disagree with you, and refusing to communicate or cooperate in discussion and instead "rage quitting". I have really taken steps to avoid controversial subjects on WP (focusing on vandalism and NPR), but your behavior is so consistently inconsistent with what WP is all about. Somehow you have avoided bans or at least a topic ban for terrorism despite consistently being reported, but you are clearly not here to build a wiki, in my informed opinion. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  16:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per E.M.Gregory and BabbaQ.  -- ψ λ  ●  ✉  00:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment After reading new comments and news articles relating Parsons Green incident, I'll say this article deserves a separate entry. Clearly, not WP:MILL. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Greenbörg  (talk)  15:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles is plural and the 'mention' in the 'Indy' is errrrr a textbook example of a 'mention', not 'in-depth' coverage. Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep come back in December. L3X1 (distænt write)  03:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'll bite, why? What is your opinion on notability right now for this minor botched attack with no indication of a lasting historical significance?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:21, 23 September 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.