Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porte de Vincennes siege


 * 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, per WP:SNOW. —Lowellian (reply) 16:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Porte de Vincennes siege

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This should be part of Charlie Hebdo shooting, and was until the creation of this fork. It is not a separate incident, but part of that chain of that chain of events. It must be deleted. I also don't understand the use of the word "siege", which doesn't seem to be based in reality. RGloucester — ☎ 17:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough notability for separate article. Merging to main article violates WP:SIZE. Rename to Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis. 178.94.120.204 (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. The main article is not too large for the guideline, and is in fact modest in size. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep More than sufficient individual notablity. If kept, naming issues aren't for this page to decide. --Dweller (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Per Dweller. Plenty of more details to add to the page as well. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Obviously notable and a different event to CH; frankly, nominator's wasting people's time with this and the Je suis one. Ericoides (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no justification for keeping this article. It must be deleted. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Definite keep Notable in itself and is part of a larger trend of antisemitic violence in Europe separate from the initial shootings at Charlie Hebdo --81.129.124.67 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Obviously notable, separate, historical event. Part of French history. Strong keep and expand.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its is a distinct event:


 * * * 1. executed by a different set of terrorists


 * * * 2. with a different motive


 * * * *    2.a Charlie Hebdo was for free speech the terrorists did not agree with


 * * * *   2.b Hypercacher attack was anti-semite event, as self-declared by the terrorist and by the President of France too


 * * * 3. with a different set of victims


 * * * *   3.a Charlie Hebdo was against employees of Charlie Hebdo or whoever got in the way


 * * * *   3.b Hyperchacher attack was deliberately against Jews and all killed are Jews


 * XavierItzm (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Event is distinct enough to warrant separate coverage for now.  Issue may be revisited in future if this should change. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Will most likely always be relevant and there is a good chance further coverage will come when things calm down, this is a historically significant event --81.129.124.67 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Per every other statement made here. My only issue is that it needs some more information. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree, but even with some clean-up and a bit more accurate details, it's still going to stay as a fairly small article. Perhaps merging the Amedy Coulibaly article in with it can give it some more substance? I'm not sure. Someone else can deal with it if it's indeed as important of an article as this discussion says it is. Zup326 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep seriously?  Let's get rid of the delete tag already Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and/or Merge I agree with RGloucester that extra articles are probably not needed for each subsequent event that occurred after the main Charlie Hebdo shooting. My reasoning is that I don't believe many people are going to remember the sieges as stand-alone issues, but rather they will be remembered as a continuation and the conclusion to the Charlie Hebdo saga. Sort of like the term "Kleenex" is now used to describe all tissue, even the ones that aren't official Kleenex brand. The term "Charlie Hebdo" has taken on a similar meaning with regard to these attacks. But at the same time it's also not plausible to delete the new articles merely for the sake of having too many articles. This deletion debate will swiftly end in favor of keep. Zup326 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is likely that some would see it as a significant event in its own right for reasons that should be fairly clear --81.129.124.67 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Although related to the earlier murders, it is an independently notable event. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Separate event. --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is distinct enough to have a separate article. The Charlie Hebdo shooting article does not cover it adequately. --Article editor (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I originally closed this as Keep but upon thinking about it as well as the !votes here I think it's best I reopen given the nature of it all, Cheers, – Davey 2010 Talk 20:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

should we remove the deletion tag?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I vehemently disagree with nominator that this event needs to remain in the Charlie Hedbo shooting article. In fact, it should be barely mentioned within that article, given the size constraints and the fact that it was not the same perps. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for all the reasons mentioned above. I agree that the word "siege" in the title is misplaced, but that is definitely not grounds for deletion. It is definitely a notable event. BenLinus  1214 talk 22:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Obviously notable LectriceDuSoir (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Very notable.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It was a distinct event separate the many other events in the chain that occured in those ~48 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.189.141 (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notable event--Arbutus the tree (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability is indicated by sources. Also an admonishment to the nominator for starting ridiculous, time-wasting AFDs. Everyking (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can User:RGloucester see consensus here and remove the tag? -- Aronzak (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment –  If you wanted this to be part of Charlie Hebdo shooting, why wouldn't you at least keep it as a redirect? A bold merge would have been possible without any discussion per WP:BRD, and regardless of your stance (although from the looks of it, it likely would have been reverted), there should at least be a redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting. Dustin ( talk ) 06:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep part of global international coverage of Charlie Hebdo shooting, admin should be ashamed for such a ridiculous AFD -- Aronzak (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, he tried a bold merge which was indeed swiftly reverted. Had this discussion miraculously gone his way then in all likelihood he'd have made redirections as well. If not then someone else could have easily made them. The name of the article at the time was not even certain. AfD was pretty much his only shot at pulling off the merge anyway. A very slim chance nonetheless which is now all but finished. Zup326 (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Erm. SNOWBALL. C'est tout. --Dweller (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources clearly establish notability. Clearly an independent event to Charlie Hebdo. Spiderone  08:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Although clearly connected to the perpetrators of the CH attack, Coulibaly's actions and clearly significant enough to merit their own page. If all he had done was shoot the police officer and then been quickly apprehended or neutralised, the content could easily be incorporated with the CH attack page, but the supermarket attack is far too notable in its own right not to have its own page. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Another bad-faith nom from RGloucester (see Je suis Charlie).  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Distinctly separate from the main incident, this article justifies itself through size and notability. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Notable in itself and is part of a larger trend of violence in the world. Trackteur (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough notability for separate article. Tbo 157   (talk)   12:22, 11 January 2015 (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.