Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Linz 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 delete. Mainly because of the WP:NOTNEWS points brought up. I don't think that under current policy we can treat Daesh-affiliated crimes differently from non-Daesh affiliated ones, as an aside, which makes some of the notability arguments less convincing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 Linz Attack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a murder, written to sound like a terrorist attack. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. - MrX 10:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Also a violation of WP:BLP as it says the arrested suspect is guilty of murder and terrorist offences when he hasn't been tried yet. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Note - Page has been moved to June 2017 Linz Murder. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep for now A politically motivated, likely ISIL-inspired double homicide in Austria that have received notable coverage. An unusual and notable incident both because of the nature of the incident and the country it happened, (to 2nd comment) whether it's labelled "terror" or not is not relevant for notability, the inspiration and motive alone is notable in itself (although, according to article, the Austrian Minister of Interior and State Police Director seem to confirm this). (to 1st comment) BLP issues should be cleared up, but that in itself is not any reason for deletion. User2534 (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: You can't really clear up the BLP issues. The whole premise of the article is that this was a terrorist murder perpetrated by a named individual. It hasn't been proven to be either. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Assertions of violation of WP:BLP are nonsense. Nor only because suspect is identified only as "Mohamed H.", but because this is an article about a crime, and we do routinely keep articles about noteworthy recent homicides, and we keep significant crimes from the moment they become notable news stories even though they may take years to reach trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * BLP applies if the individual is identifiable, or potentially identifiable, not simply if they are identified. Only if this person does not face trial, would this person cease to be easily identifiable . Pincrete (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Chief of Police, Interior Minister, and police investigators have stated plainly that suspect is an ideologically motivated Islamist who murdered an elderly couple in cold blood because he thought that they belonged to a political party that he did not like. It is a major national news story in Austria and has gotten international mews coverage. (I added some English language sources and put the parts of text into intelligible English as per sources.)  E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And, oh, yeah, perp also pledged allegiance to ISIS and to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on his Facebook page "recently". E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nom apparently failed to run WP:BEFORE check. Doing so would immediately have revealed that Austrian officials investigating this double murder, after investigating suspects social media accounts and computer files, began characterizing it as an Islamist attack, probably lone wolf, by July 6.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * None of that makes the subject any more notable. We do not have content policies that give special treatment to articles about possible IS inspired violence. This seems to be a fairly routine crime not worthy of preserving in an encyclopedia. It belongs in Wikinews.- MrX 18:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources for "allegiance pledges"? The Austrian ones are v.poor and the Eng ones don't say that. Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

* Keep The article has improved a lot since the last time I checked. I would prefer some more changes to be made, like adding the name of the person accused rather than ISIL in the infobox. It was an ISIL-sympathiser, not an ISIL-member.JBergsma1 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This a news event with no lasting notability. It's one murderer of no notability, and speculation that it "may have had Islamist motives" is not enough to justify an article. If, in the future, articles appear that describe the suspect trained in a Daesh terrorist camp or something like that, maybe then it would meet Wikipedia's standards. But as it stands now, WP:NOTNEWS. CrispyGlover (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * could you possibly rethink your vote again? The incident is still a WP:NOTNEWS event with no WP:LASTING impact. Gregory usually piles on sources to sway voters who don't always check the content. The article hasn't really improved; in fact, it has a lot of SYNTH and OR (see Pincrete's comment) now to carry on the narrative that this was terrorism without it being confirmed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean with this incident having little media attention and notability for an encyclopedic article. In my opinion it is on the edge of being relevant and irrelevant, but since the article has been expanded with a wider background story and more information in general, I'll vote for it be kept.I did check some of the sources, like https://www.thelocal.at/20170706/islamist-motive-suspected-in-murder-of-elderly-couple-in-austria-linz, which mentions an islamist motive. I think, despite little international media coverage, the incident resembles the 2016 Magnanville stabbing a little bit. In that case to french police officers were murdered and in this case two elders who allegedly voted for the FPÖ were murdered. I have to admit that I don't know the exact circumstances in which this incident took place, but I have to agree with you as well on the content being rather unfitting.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I've changed my opinion once again because new sources from the Austrian authorities are saying that there wasn't terrorism involved. As there was no terrorist motive, this incident becomes irrelevant for an encyclopedic article. The newspaper 'The Local', which is used in the article, mentions: We currently don't believe that it was an IS-motivated murder or terror attack.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your close look at the coverage. I struck your previous vote so editors do not think you voted twice.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, at first I didn't read the whole source. Better next time.JBergsma1 (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per MrX: "Article about a murder, written to sound like a terrorist attack. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT" . Claims above that the Austrian authorities are treating this as 'terrorist' are false: the "same police spokesman said: "the case was being treated as a "double murder" and not a jihadist killing ... We currently don't believe that it was an IS-motivated murder or terror attack," Furtner said" this is the source which is being relied on to establish an ISIS connection. A lot of synth or OR is required to bypass such an explicit rebuttal. Pincrete (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Regardless of whether this is a terror attack or not (right now it is being investigated as the latter), should be irrelevant to the vote rationales on both sides of the discussion. Where is the WP:LASTING impact of the incident? If the answer is just "...well there will be a trial" then you haven't found a good reason to keep this article. Two people were murdered; it is a tragic occurrence, something the news loves to cover, but that does not mean it is suitable for the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * LASTING will lie in the fact that this is being describes as the first Islamist attack in Austria.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as per JBergsma1' arguments Zezen (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note That the murder occurred in June, however, national and international coverage followed the 6 July revelation  that the killer had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State  gNews search in German,  French:.
 * First "If confirmed, Friday's killings in the northern city of Linz -- in which an 85-year-old woman's throat was slit and her 87-year-old husband was stabbed and beaten to death -- would be the first Islamist attack in Austria, which had so far avoided the jihadist assaults seen elsewhere in Europe." .E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see a big if at the beginning of this statement. As in, you are assuming that this is a terror attack without it being confirmed. Why don't you respond to Pincrete's comment above? A lot of synth (again) is being used by you to create a narrative of terrorism.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not SYNTH. The Interior Minister and police investigators have stated that perp pledged allegiance to ISIS before murdering the elderly couple for ideological reasons.  Killer now in custody, there will be a trial.  Slick, I know that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, but national and international press are covering the story because of the jihadist stuff all over his computer and social media accounts, and because he pledged allegiance to ISIS.  Whey do you insist on WP:RAPID rather than WP:PRESERVE?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So what? Are we supposed to create articles for every murder where the alleged motive as something new in a particular country, or does this only apply to the specter of radical Islamism?- MrX 17:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The interior Minister's statements precede the police statement, but even if they didn't, it does not say what you claim, "perp pledged allegiance to .. no one" according to the sources. "Is clearly a radicalized Muslim" does not equal "was an Islamist attack" any more than "committed murder and 'liked' D Trump" = "is a far-right terrorist", pure synth. The possible ideological/political motive given by police is hatred of the far-right party, not support for ISIS. BTW the accused appears to have handed himself in to police, also probably a first for a terrorist! Pincrete (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- note "If confirmed, Friday's killings..." -- let's wait until this is confirmed, and then maybe create an article. For now this is a crime of no encyclopedic relevance just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the linked articles; "If confirmed" refers to the question of whether or not the govt. of Austria will choose to deem this as a terrorist attack. Governments have political and other considerations, but they is separate from the fact that the international press has already covered this incident as a major national and international news story because 1.) perp knew his victims - who had been kind to him and had even lent him money - and attacked them because he disliked their politics,  2.) his social media and computer were filled with violent jihad, and, 3.) perp pledged alliegiance to ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that it is bad from for editors iVoting delete to delete pertinent information sourced to Le Parisien and Agence France Presse, and as well as to Austrian sources, but especially so with an edit that reads: " rm mindless speculation."E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note - I apologize for the snotty edit summary, but I stand by my edit (which you have already reverted, contrary to WP:BRD). Wikipedia is WP:NOTSPECULATION. We should not amplify speculation as if trying to convince readers that a fairly minor event is highly significant.- MrX 21:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- not everything published in the paper belongs in the encyclopedia, and this event does not belong yet, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Re "not everything published etc." ..... Especially when what Le Parisien actually says is not what is claimed, what it says is: The case is however treated as a double murder and not as an Islamist attack. "As things stand, we do not think it is a terrorist attack or a murder motivated by the Islamic state," said police spokesman David Furtner . "It seems that the man was radicalized, but there were no third parties who ordered him to commit these murders, and the IS did not claim responsibility for them." ..... Two other sources were speculations that preceded police statements and I couldn't be bothered to check AFP when other sources were being so mis-used. Pincrete (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Editors coming to this confusing discussion who want to look at one source in English can check this: story in The Local,  and should know that suspect is in custody and awaiting trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for pointing out that there is barely one source that supports this particular narrative, even if you fail to point out that the official police position has altered since this atatement was made. Pincrete (talk) 07:30, 23 July 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.