Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming 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 keep.  Sandstein  07:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A van crashing into a police car is not notable.

I tagged a different article on this subject for deletion, but it was 'merged' into this. I have now been asked to extend the deletion discussion to this article. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ  21:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that far from being the car accident implied by Nom, this was a ISIS terrorist attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It is clearly WP:NOTE. It got a lot of media attention in international and national media. It got a lot of responses in France, especially in politics. And it was a planned terrorist attack, which normally get coverage here if it gets covered by mass media. I would love to know what is different to this article than to any other bomb plot or terrorist incident? --Rævhuld (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep A car full of explosives and assault rifles attacking police officers resulting in a shooting in a major part of Paris is a notable event Murchison-Eye (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * actually the suspect died in the car crash, either by the impact or the flames; there was no shooting from what I read. Here is the only thing that came out of this, as said at the closing of this subject for ITN: "Possible headway on this year's Darwin Award winner".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This was a Vehicle-ramming attack, not a "car crash."E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad your here to pick apart a minor aspect of my comment . I fully realized what this incident was without your response but thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that virtually everything that will be said here was just said at Articles for deletion/2017 Notre Dame attack (which closed as KEEP.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a minor incident with zero injuries and zero deaths. As the nom said, somebody crashing into a police car is not an event notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. See WP:10 year test. AusLondonder (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:AusLondonder, I often think about that test. My very first edit was about a 1906 terrorist bombing by Mateu Morral.  Over the last year or two, I have been prompted by contemporary sources to look for, then create 1995 Paris Métro and RER bombings, 1936 Tulkarm shooting, 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack, 1985 Copenhagen bombings, and other articles about long-ago terrorist attacks precisely because they do not get forgotten.  They get discussed.  It is easier to create good articles as significant terrorist attacks happen, and sources and editors are readily available.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Point of order, when citing documents in the Wikipedia namespace, could you be more careful, and explicitly say when that essay is merely an essay?  Some essays are so very widely agreed with, they might as well be a policy.  WP:ATA is very widely agreed with.  Other essays are barely read, or represent fringe opinions, not generally shared by many contributors.  In the interest of openness, transparency, fairness, I encourage you to preface every reference to an essay with the phrase "the essay".  Geo Swan (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't generally cover each murder with its own individual article. Why?  Because most murders are so similar that our readers can rely on our articles on the topic of murder, and our articles on penal codes.  Murders that are unusual, and trigger press coverage because the circumstances were notable, or the participants were notable, are good candidates for articles.  The topic of terrorists ramming police cars is unusual.  Should it be covered in a subsection of an article about traffic accidents in France?  No.  We don't have that article, and it wasn't an accident.  If murders were as rare as terrorists ramming police cars I am sure we would cover each and everyone with its own article.
 * AusLondonder, you wrote: "somebody crashing into a police car is not an event notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Woah!  There is no tactful way to say this, but this comment triggers a concern for me as to how well you understand the wikipedia's basic policies.  We are not supposed to editorialize.  We don't determine the notability of a topic by sharing our personal opinion of its notability.  We determine its notability based on whether reliable sources found it notable.  A couple of decades ago Canada's first openly gay MP was caught shoplifting an inexpensive item at a drug store.  Shoplifting a bottle of sunscreen might seem like something you and I might, personally, think shouldn't merit coverage at the wikipedia.  But our personal opinions aren't relevant!  RS covered the event, in detail.  That makes the event notable.  Period.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral - when I first proposed deletion for the other page, the article simply stated that a van crashed into a police car-- nothing about bombs or other weapons. So I do not have a strong opinion for this, but was asked to open another discussion and I did so. But at the same time, I think it might be a case where a compilation of failed attacks would be better suited. It is easy to miss the forest for the trees when there is an article for every occurrence, rather than having all the information in one article.  ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐁT₳LKᐃ  23:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:El cid, el campeador You make a thoughtful point. My perspective, after editing regularly in this topic area for three years, is that (provided the individual articles attract sufficient attention to pass WP:GNG,)  it is more useful to keep these as individual articles precisely so that we can complie failed attacks into useful "forests."  For example, this is attack is surely relevant to articles we already have on Vehicle-ramming attacks as a terrorist tactic; on the Amaq News Agency (Western terrorism investigators are just beginning to understand the manner in which its operatives arrange as well as incite this sort of attack see: 2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson together with the Amaq article]]); Terrorism in France desperately needs to be developed into a real article;  as does Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present); meanwhile  Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant doesn't even have a subhead on the attacks it has been confirmed to have carried out abroad.  Redirecting this article to any single one of those articles emphasizes only a single aspect of this attack's significance.  Keeping it as an article enables those other articles to link to it and, as you say, enables us to help our readers see each of the forests, not merely the the individual trees.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, there is already a mention of this incident at Champs-Élysées. The killer will get no trial, where is the lasting impact? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is an attack of no long-term consequence. I have noticed there were calls for extending the state of emergency but that is expected from a city enduring attacks in a relatively short amount of time. All in all, this is an obvious WP:NOTNEWS event that is better explained in a list.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck my vote because I do not want to be involved in a discussion where editors blatantly ignore all the encyclopedic reasons to delete or redirect this article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am hoping the closing admin will weigh the comments fairly. The coverage of this event appears to have stopped, it isn't like the others where you have a truck plowing through a crowd of people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. This looks like a failed terrorist attack. Unless evidence of long term impact emerges, there is little about this article stub that isn't already covered in List of terrorist incidents in France.  Not every skirmish in a conflict deserves a stand-alone article.  If this incident is officially declared as terrorism, redirecting is a viable option. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A ramming is not an accident, it's a deliberate act.  This ramming has received international coverage and is being investigated as a terrorist attack.  Cllgbksr (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, extensive coverage on this. This is no ordinary "crash", this was a terror plot that meant to do much more than crash into a car. Many explosives were found in the vehicle. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is why we have the WP:10YT & WP:NOTNEWS, in the grand scope of things do you think that this attack is going to stand out from all of the other terrorist attacks and be encyclopedia worthy? I just know that every French person is thinking to themselves right now: "I know where I was that day when that car rammed into that other police car". I mean come on.... where is the line where we say enough is enough when it comes to WP:LASTING notability? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We have no CRYSTALBALL but the fact the perp had been for years on the "S Fiche", i.e., was, according to Wikipedia, "an individual considered to be a serious threat to national security" is likely to result in investigations of did the government fail to do anything about the terrorist.  Likely we'll see references to this attack for years.XavierItzm (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but with all due respect you cited WP:CRYSTAL then proceeded to say "Likely we'll see references to this attack for years". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep covered by RS, part of a larger pattern of Islamic terrorism in France.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Is the Wikipedia running out of server space? No. This event has been widely covered by WP:RS worldwide and content continues to be added. There is no sound rationale for deletion, and if this were deleted for reasons of being considered "minor" (in the eyes of the deleter), then about 1/2 of the Wikipedia, with articles with less sources and less edits, would have to be deleted too, for consistency. As the latter is unlikely to happen, the deletion of this page and not of the others would show clear bias/censorship by the deleters. XavierItzm (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am legitimately ashamed of a lot of editors here. One day of coverage that mirrors itself is considered "extensive"? Not one keep rationale has explained the long-term WP:LASTING impact of this subject. In fact, the majority of you blatantly ignore it. As soon as the words "terrorist attack" pop up in a wave of brief or WP:ROUTINE media coverage, you just vote keep without actually analyzing the written policies that outline why these articles are not notable. Like a bunch of sheep.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am legitimately offended when an editor attempts to shame other editors for how they vote. The last sentence of WP:LASTING states "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."  Unless you have a crystal ball that this event that has received sufficient international RS will have no long lasting effect, an apology is in order.  Cllgbksr (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See also WP:RAPID, which applies with special force to incidents like explosions, riots, skyscraper fires, and terrorist attacks. We routinely create articles on incidents of these sorts when they make national and international headlines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't need a crystal ball to identify the event does not establish a long-term impact. We don't wait for subjects to be notable; they either are or they are not. When or if they are, then you write an article about it. Makes sense, right?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep As this incident was and still is covered globally, and most likely belongs to a series of similar motivated attacks.Joobo (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I created the article because ISIS attacks like this one, like Islamist attacks in general, are treated as notable events by the international media, are invariably revisited by analysts, journalists, and scholars in the years after they occur, and are therefore almost always WP notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a reliable source that LINKS this as an ISIS attack? Its one thing to claim something but its another to prove it is so as ISIS claims responsibility for everything that is seen as an attack against the west. We don't even know if this is terrorism or a nutjob as this is still being investigated as terrorism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your assertion is flawed. Perhaps you do not follow this issue, but Amaq/ISIS by no means "ISIS claims responsibility for everything.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * New York Times on Amaq, which posted this claim immediately.: "Despite a widespread view that the Islamic State opportunistically claims attacks with which it has little genuine connection, its track record — minus a handful of exceptions — suggests a more rigorous protocol.At times, the Islamic State has gotten details wrong, or inflated casualty figures, but the gist of its claims is typically correct. The group has made it clear that it considers itself responsible both for acts carried out by its own personnel, as well as acts carried out by people who lack direct ties to the group but were inspired by its propaganda. In several instances, moreover, the Islamic State has claimed attacks before the identities of the killers were known.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Plus other sources now added to article. We really don't delete well-sourced Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Widely covered. Possibly linked to London revenge attacks. Just because the attacker failed, does not detract from the rather large potentialndamage here.Icewhiz (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep certainly meets notability guidelines regardless of assailant's background TheWarOfArt (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep; this is one of many recent terrorist attacks, albeit an unsuccessful one, and as mentioned above, an attack on police officers that results in a shooting makes this noteworthy. MeanMotherJr (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I hate to break this to you but police officers get attacked somewhere in the world every week. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * and when, as here, such an attack is the subject of intense international news coverage, such an attack can be WP Notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you mean a splash in the news, yes it got that. We shouldn't be making these attacks more notable than they are as this one has not received ongoing coverage. There has been nothing that I have seen that has come out of this attack. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia coverage is neither a reward, or a punishment. Your comment implies (1) you think the driver is being rewarded; your comment implies (2) you seem to think we should try to influence public perception of causes, like terrorism.  Yes, AGF, we all personally abhor terrorism.  No, we should not try to use the wikipedia to influence organizations we don't like, even ISIS and al Qaeda.  To do so erodes the confidence we want the public to feel in our neutrality.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Here in my city, and probably yours too, there will be multiple instances today, where a police officer had a drunk take a poke at him or her.  Many of those incidents not only won't end up in the wikipedia, they may not even make it into the officer's report, because the officer dodged the blow, and didn't consider it worth the paperwork.  This event isn't like that.  Not even close.  If being a sloppy, angry, combative drunk was as rare as being an angry, combative, terrorist wannabe, don't you think we would cover every time a drunk attacked a police officer?  Geo Swan (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * FWIW the article has been read almost 6000 times, in the last week or so.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 26 June 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.