Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2016 Paris police station attack (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The !votes for Keep would indicate that this article meets the requirements for passing GNG. While the initial AfD was no consensus, the strength of the Keep arguments in this discussion outweigh the Delete points of view. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 15:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

January 2016 Paris police station attack
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previous discussion resulted in no consensus. Per WP:NOTNEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopaedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Is already included in List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016. This was simply a routine local crime. AusLondonder (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This was anything but a "routine local crime," as Nom would have it. "routine local crimes" do not involve investigations by police in multiple countries, or draw extensive, in depth coverage in international sources.  This ISIS-inspired attack got the attention to pass WP:GNG.  What the article actually need is expanded sourcing in languages including German and French.  A section needs tobe added, for example, on the lawsuit apparently filed in French courts by this jihadist's family for wrongful death. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep for now - Per . This article could use a little more work, but other than that, I don't see why this should be deleted. Parsley Man (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Nobody killed and pretty much routine; sadly the 'person of questionable sanity deciding to try to get into a police station' story is pretty common and most times results in either the person being easily stopped and arrested or more rarely, being killed. They get past, that's different, but it didn't happen here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Mrschimpf's is Not a policy-based comment. The question here is not whether you personally think this was a routine crime, but whether coverage in reliable sources was local and treated it as routine crime, or whether the coverage was international, in depth, and treated by the press and public figures/authorities as more than a routine, local crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This meets the very definition of WP:NCRIME, a known policy. "ISIS-inspired" is the new "Al-Queda inspired", as it would be "IRA-inspired" or "Nazi-inspired" in the past. At best, redirect to the List of would be supported.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 14:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - This ISIS-inspired attack got the attention to pass WP:GNG. plenty of reliable sourcing as well. BabbaQ (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As is the case with these averted attacks, there is a wealth of WP:ROUTINE coverage consistent with the 24-hour news cycle, and scant follow-up references to demonstrate any level of enduring notability – therefore a failure to meet WP:GNG. I disagree with E.M. Gregory's assertions above that coverage is "in depth" and "extensive" – having read the references given, I would conclude that the standard of coverage is no more extensive than the level that would be expected from any newspaper reporting on the facts of any attempted murder. The argument that the incident is notable because coverage was international is not backed up by any policy – routine international coverage is still routine coverage, and does not demonstrate any enduring notability. I would support merging the content into the proposed list of failed terrorist attacks which generated some support at this related AfD, but I would delete this article. Aspirex (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support the proposal at Articles for deletion/2015 New Year's attack plots and Aspirex's proposal to Merge this article and 2015 New Year's attack plots to a new article with User:Spirit Ethanol's proposed title List of unsuccessful plots inspired or directed by ISIL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC) I no longer support merge, with thanks to User:Gerry1214 for teh storng, Deutsch sourcing. I do support creation of a List of unsuccessful plots inspired or by ISIL form which this article can be linked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Name should be List of unsuccessful plots inspired or by ISIL, or inspired should be clarified in article. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I added various sources (and definitely could find much more) how this case fueled the discussion in German media (and not only there) about refugees, their registration and identification, terrorism and much more. This article definitely meets WP:GNG, and it is linked in the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany article, as the case was discussed in the media in the context of these events. And I heavily doubt that a 2nd AfD discussion is needed about this.--Gerry1214 (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * note Articles for deletion/2014 Tours stabbings also a lone-wolf stabbing attack on a police station in France.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a minor local event, which only reached headlines because of heightened sensitivity in Paris, especially on the anniversary of Charlie Hebdo. There is no indication of lasting coverage. If it does turn out to be a historic event it can be re-created. &mdash; Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * au contraire see, or example this 19 February CNN report .E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't abide that. That CNN article states clearly at the top that it is periodically updated - in other words, it is an evergreen list to which CNN adds every terrorist attack as it reports on it. For you to put that up as evidence that this particular incident has gained ongoing coverage is either misguided or misleading. Aspirex (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My bad. But even if I hastily happened to post an article that was updated a month after the attack, it is the assertion that coverage was local, brief and routine that false.  As editors have said better than I below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not matter for what reason an attack on a police station becomes the topic international and national headlines. WP:GNG,  WP:EVENT and WP:CRIME all stipulate the type of international press attention that this attack received as indicating notability.
 * WP:RAPID exists precisely because of the lamentable inefficiency of crystal balls, it is policy because you/we cannot yet know how lasting the significance of this event will prove. This Deutsche Welle article  will give editors new to this topic an idea of the kind of international attention paid to this incident.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I fully agree E.M.Gregory. "Minor local event" is obviously wrong. As anyone can read in the article, it is an international event that received significant and ongoing international reception since it happened.--Gerry1214 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What "international reception" would that be? If this was an international event what countries were involved? What countries sent aid or issued travel warnings? AusLondonder (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Prominent international newsmedia (UK & USA are overrepresented here, as this is an English page, but also Germany and France, surely more countries) reported, an attacker who travelled in from Tunisia over Romania through the EU to Germany, had 20 identities in 7 different countries, a broad reception in France, Spain , even more in Germany because of the significant political implications - what is "local" in this case? Events are not notable because of travel warnings or aid offers (WP only would have articles about natural disasters then), but because of WP:GNG. --Gerry1214 (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Online news coverage on a couple of days is not what I view as "significant and ongoing international reception" AusLondonder (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not your view which is essential, but WP:GNG. Online/offline is not decisive as long as the sources are reliable, it was much more than "a couple of days", and "ongoing" coverage over weeks is not even needed, but existing here. I wonder why I have to lead this odd discussion here.--Gerry1214 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Per Gerry1214 + this case molds public opinion on Category:Crimes related to the European migrant crisis. Stefanomione (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - with respect, is your rationale for keeping because it is a member of a cat that is about to be deleted? AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - with respect, is your motivation for WP:BLUDGEONing that you dislike all articles about the horror of Islamist terrorism?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * AusLondonder. Oh dear the irony og E.M.Gregory accusing others of bludgeoning. Take a look at what you've done above. AusLondonder (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep ⁓ I guess I don't really understand why it was nom'd to begin with. Seems a perfectly valid article. Dziban303 (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep So many news articles about it, don't really see the reason why it was Nfd. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Haven't you ever heard of WP:NOTNEWS AusLondonder (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep A unique infiltration method (many passports) with impact beyond the regular news cycle. Still being covered in the news (mentioned today in this CNN video). Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable event for the large amount of coverage and unusual nature of the crime. Yes, perhaps the other attacks on Paris did raise the profile of this attack somewhat, but that's the way that news (and the interest of the public) works. Shritwod (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Haven't you ever heard of WP:NOTNEWS AusLondonder (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2016 (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.