Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 03:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I apologize in advance for the lengthy rationale but these discussions are notorious for promoting ignorance in several policies. I thoroughly analyzed all the relevant policies and determined why this incident is not notable for a standalone page. Please do not simply ignore policy in favor of personal opinion or bias. Thank you. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Two months after this incident, WP:RAPID and the non-existent WP:OBVIOUSTERROR can hopefully be discarded in favor of actual discussion about notability.
 * One major issue is the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in parts of the background -- those sources were published before this vehicle-ramming. Who determined the significance of this self-constructed background other than the article creator?
 * The subject also fails WP:EVENTCRIT which advices writers to bear in mind WP:RECENTISM and that an event, such as a crime, needs more than media coverage (even if it was widely reported) to be notable. No such impact is found in the WP:ROUTINE three-day news cycle this incident received (remember WP:NOTNEWS?).
 * Another issue is WP:GEOSCOPE: the influence of the attack was limited and brief, if there ever was any. Going down the list at WP:NOTE, we find the subject also fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH; remember, passing mentions in media reports, especially about other incidents, do not contribute to further coverage.
 * Lastly, here is an interesting quote from WP:RSBREAKING: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS". The majority, if not all, of the coverage for this incident was from breaking news, creating a clear lack of reliable secondary sources.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete - I agree wholeheartedly with the nominator of this article and they have succinctly encapsulated to point. Very well analysed and this page should be deleted. Sport and politics (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - good sources, noted incident. We had a AfD that closed as Keep as late as June for this article. This article should be kept.BabbaQ (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly explained why the sources are not "good". Why are you ignoring the relevant policies which demonstrate why the coverage does not support notability?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not true that the article had a "3 day coverage cycle". For example, Le Parisien dedicated an article to it on 13 July.  El Pais published an in-depth reportage on 18 August that vehicular attacks are increasing in Europe because the Islamic State has been encouraging its followers to execute this tactic for three years, and included this particular attack as an instance of the success IS is having with it. .  With regard to the argument that mentions of this attack during coverage of more recent attacks is "no further coverage," remember that each time the WP:RS refer to this incident, it proves the significance of the Champs-Élysées attack.  Finally, if anyone does not like literally a couple of sentences on the background section because of differences of opinion with regard to their relevance to the attack itself, I should point out that the correct way of addressing any such issues is to edit the 11,187 byte article, not to nuke the article from orbit.  We are trying to improve the Wikipedia, not to obliterate it, and there has to be a reason why the article had ca. 4,400 page views in August.XavierItzm (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per the arguments put forward in this AfD and the previous one - as well as the AfDs on previous attacks which resulted in them being kept. Jim Michael (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per arguments above. Note, however, that in the light of the well-attended AfD held just 2 months ago with an very strong consensus to KEEP, and in the light of the series of AfD nominations of terrorist attack that Nom has brought recently  feels WP:POINTy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Amazing. All the keep votes blatantly ignore all the policy-based reasons to delete this article or dodge discussing the notability issue entirely. This incident fails every single relatable policy and I thoroughly demonstrated that. I suppose we need a policy that directly addresses this issue because this is ridiculous. I'm sure that hypothetical guideline will also be ignored but at least a closing admin will recognize it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Being pointy is not policy based. We are not ignoring anything, simply because we disagree with you does not mean we are wrong. Still, placing a new AfD nom on this article so soon after a clear Keep consensus seems odd.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * then please demonstrate why every single issue I brought up has no bearing on the notability of this article. I know you won't.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep WP:IAR As per WP:BEFORE B4, nominators are expected to check the article's talk page for previous nominations.  By ignoring the principle that "Keep" AfDs should not be renominated in less than six months, this nomination shows disregard for AfD norms.  This current AfD comes in the context of a massive outpouring of event nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , no, there is no staunch rule saying I must wait six months or more, even in a "keep" situation. If you cared to read my rationale, you would notice I did address the prior arguments at the first AfD. Two months was reasonable, avoiding WP:RAPID and the regulars who ask us to "wait for the subject to be notable". Why should I be surprised at this point: five keep votes and they all disregard several policies or presenting a keep rationale entirely.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since I said nothing about a "staunch rule", the argument is a straw man . As for the nomination "address[ing] the prior arguments at the first AfD", I'm unable to verify that assertion.  I even tried skimming both the nomination and the previous AfD.  It is a long AfD, and while I can't doubt the theory that there are related elements, I see no attempt to review the previous AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would you bring up the six months if you agree it isn't set in stone? To your other point, perhaps I should have specified the WP:RAPID and WP:OBVIOUSTERROR comment was referring to the past AfD arguments, ones that can hopefully be discarded here. Could you (or a single voter for that matter) at the very least address my rationale for deletion? Are none of those policies relevant anymore? Your keep "rationale" totally bypasses the notability issue because you believe I ignored the past AfD, and fortunately I did no such thing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble tracking your meaning. One point, WP:SK is not the same as a "Keep" !vote.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above comments.  Greenbörg  (talk)  10:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in France -- not independently notable. Fails WP:NOTNEWS; the article is written as a news report and is not suitable for an encyclopedia. No lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Revisiting, it seems to me that the arguments by Nom and others that this is a mere news report are refuted not only by the contribution that each new attack makes to the French decision to keep Opération Sentinelle (armed soldiers patrolling the Street of French cities; how swiftly the inconceivable is taken for granted,) but also because of WP:SIGCOV such as Barcelona attack mirrors Isis' repeated calls for massacres in Europe using vehicles, []. The detail of individual incidents, preserved in articles dedicated to a single event, are the building blocks of knowledge, on Wikipedia as in scholarship.  I continue the think keep, as I did in the AfD on this incident three months ago. (wait, did I create this one?  I may have. Who cares?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was featured in the LGBT media for several months. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * no disrespect but I am having a hard time believing the LGBT community would be interested in a failed terrorist attack for months. Can I see some of this media coverage because I have never seen "several months" of coverage from any media outlets. This was a three-day news subject at best.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:33, 10 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.