Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Antwerp 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. The earlier "keep" opinions mostly assert notability because this was initially treated as a terrorist attack. With these charges now dropped, further substantial coverage appears unlikely, strengthening the "delete" side's argument that this is ultimately a routine incident with not more than temporary coverage. This can be recreated if later coverage makes the event appear to be of lasting significance after all.  Sandstein  18:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Antwerp attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hi It is not a notable attack. The author of the attack drunked a lot. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleter I agree that this "attack" is not notable and should be deleted. A look at news sources shows no continuing coverage. Jolly Ω Janner 08:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect (can be redirected later if needed) to List of terrorist incidents in March 2017. Clearly newsworthy (WP:NOTNEWS). Timing with London and possibly style with Berlin, passes GNG, arguably notable as similar as part of pattern which is no less notable for deathtoll. Too early to say if will turn from a news item to long-term, but there's sources including ones days after the event [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Widefox; talk 09:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: any official source said that it is evident that the attack is terrorist. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We build articles and notability on WP:SECONDARY sources not WP:PRIMARY. Sources are saying threat level not changed, but extra security put on. Per WP:EVENT passes "widespread (national or international) impact ". It's WP:CRYSTAL to say it's terrorism or not, or has no long-term impact. Widefox; talk 09:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: any secondary source said that it is a terrorist attack. And the secondary sources are based on the investigation results. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:N. This nomination is currently unconvincing - alcohol is irrelevant for notability, and so it's as simple as that. Please make a better case, say reasoning it per guideline rather than just stating it is not notable. NYT sources [6] [7] [8]. That's way over WP:GNG counting them as WP:RS (although yes, WP:PRIMARYNEWS). Per EVENT "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.". Also see WP:BEFORE. Widefox; talk 09:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: No, the request is totally legitimate, the investigation shows that the author was under the influence of alcohol, there was no claim of a terrorist group and the perpetrator did not Is not claimed from any organization. Moreover, what falls under WP: CRISTAL is the fact of affirming that this event will be notorious. It should therefore be deleted until proof to the contrary. And not the other way around. And then another contributor supports my request so thank you for not passing your personal opinion for the truth. And in the meantime, you have not proved anything. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirecting to terrorist incidents is a no go since we have no proof this was such. There's some interesting points at the French wiki: fr:Discussion:Attaque à Anvers en mars 2017/Suppression. Jolly Ω Janner 18:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in List of terrorist incidents in March 2017. On one hand we have "charged with attempted terrorism"[9], and WP:NOTTRUTH. On the other, a simpler explanation that fits the evidence that this was not terrorism but a drug-induced mistake by a criminal that fitted recent terrorism. We do not know the truth, so can only reflect what sources say per NOTTRUTH and WP:OR. Widefox; talk 09:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This thwarted terrorist attack received international coverage, only reason it hasn't received more coverage was no one was killed.Cllgbksr (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cllgbksr: it is not a terrorist attack, it is a crime committed by a drunker and a junkie. Please read the sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're not mutually exclusive. Has the terrorism charge been dropped? Widefox; talk 15:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, no one was injured or killed, not notable in my eyes though it should stay on the List of terrorist incidents in March 2017 assuming reputable sources state it was such, not just drug-induced. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bit early to say if just run of the mill event, or per EVENT "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." Widefox; talk 08:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per sources, this is pure speculation by the nom that it was not a failed terrorist attempt. I see no reason for deletion at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @BabbaQ: No, the sources don't say that. + the investigations. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While it is true that the perp "drunked a lot," it is pertinent that Belgian authorities have charged him with terrorism. International coverage makes it notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @E.M.Gregory: I mostly feel that some want to keep the items to keep them. I do not see any national and international coverage for several weeks and no source speaks of radicalization or ties or interest for a terrorist group. And there are no victims. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "I do not see any national and international coverage for several weeks" is a remarkable assertion about an attack that took place 14 days ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @E.M.Gregory:The facts are clear, the attack was mediated only because the media got excited. On the other hand, for the London attack, we always have new information every day. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Panam2014, Although I see that you have been editing longer than I have, perhaps you do not often edit terrorist-related articles. Just for comparative purposes, you might want to look at some other attacks in which no one was killed (except perp): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Tours stabbings, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Endeavour Hills stabbings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @E.M.Gregory: I think that on Wikipedia, there are two irreconcilable tendencies: the suppressionists and the inclusionists. I consider myself to be at the center, knowing that I have often defended tooth and nail pages that I think deserve to be on the encyclopedia, and here I defend the deletion of a page which in my opinion is not Not eligible. For the article on Australia, the investigators found evidence of its links with terrorism, not here. Or else I want to see recent articles if things have escaped me. And then the author is not dead so we could delete and restore the page if he is convicted for terrorism. For the moment, I look for WP: CRYSTALBALL. Also, please see the others arguments. So, I respect your opinion. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that police found a rifle, knives, and a can containing some sort of suspicious substance in the car. Although the wheels of justice grind slowly, there are highly likely to be further legal developments covered by news media, which is why we don't rush to delete recent crime articles WP:RAPID.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it's clearly an act of terrorism, no matter what else anyone coughs it up as. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cyrus the Penner: The facts are there, it is not what the investigators say and the news is clearly settled. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply stating "it's clearly an act of terrorism" does nothing at all to indicate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • A variety of bladed and projectile weapons were found in the car, which highly suggest, without a doubt, that the driver was intent on harming people. Considering it follows on the heels of the 2017 Westminster attack, the 2016 Berlin attack, and the 2016 Nice attack, yeah, it sounds like terrorism. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cyrus the Penner: This does not make it a terrorist attack, and in any case the attack is either terrorist or ordinary, the fact that there is no claim and the attack has not succeeded shows that the attack, Attack is not noticeable. In passing the other wiki have deleted the page. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note - The terrorism charge against the suspect was dropped. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You should have read the article. This is already in the article. As is the fact that he is being held on weapons charges authroities investigate where he was taking that rifle (not much boar-hunting in Antwerp.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This was a minor incident. It has no significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. AusLondonder (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that this is back in the news today due to the 2017 Stockholm attack. Suspect continues in police custody on firearms-related charges. Arguments that this should be deleted for lack of coverage obviated by this new round of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • @E.M.Gregory: now it is clear that it is not a terrorist incident. Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails the WP:10YT. The Nice, Berlin, London and Stockholm attacks will still be notable in a decade, this attempted attack won't be. This article about a relatively minor incident only seems to have been created due to WP:RECENTISM. Also fails WP:NOTNEWS. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CRYSTAL. See similar arguments at Talk:2014 Tours police station stabbing; as demonstrated by today's news, these incidents tend to come back into the news cycle again as similar incidents happen. And, as with 2002 Lyon car attack, they are eventually discussed retrospectively as part of a trend. Moreover, the cache of weapons in the boot of the car may put this into a category of unfolding criminal networks and plots, like the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Balkans terrorism plot. We keep many failed crimes Category:Failed terrorist attempts, and articles about criminal networks Die Wahre Religion. With that weaponry and his attempt to outrun a police chase - by plowing through pedestrians - this dude will turn out to be involved some sort of criminal network. We should keep and revisit if he gets released without further coverage or legal developments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: It makes no sense to keep an article on a common law attack or an unbalanced person. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Stay I mean, we create a new article for every new terrorist attack. How is this terrorist attack less important than the attack in Berlin, Sweden, London? It's just as notable! If you want to delete this article you should delete the other articles as well. The mass media coverage - how much or how little - is no indicator of how important a subject is for an encyclopedia.—Rævhuld (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rævhuld: WP:COVERAGE suggests that the quantity of media coverage is an indicator for the notability of events. One needs to question whether the depth of coverage is enough for this article. Also the last paragraph of WP:COVERAGE is pertinent "Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally." Jolly Ω Janner 19:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In spite of the rigorous disinformation occurring above this was not a terrorist attack. Reuters has confirmed that Belgian prosecutors have dropped terrorism charges. The story also notes the right-wing Mayor of Antwerp has been criticised for immediately calling a press conference in which he claimed that this was a "terrorist" incident. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If the article is kept then this is helpful in improving it or renaming, but it doesn't affect notability. Jolly Ω Janner 02:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just because the suspect is not being charged with terrorism right now doesn't mean the coverage is done for and notability is thrown out of the window. New information can be found that will prove otherwise. And AusLondonder, you mentioned the controversy about Antwerp's mayor. THAT is another reason for notability. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how politicians criticising a rival politician for saying something dumb equates to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't record every crime, particularly those where there is no terrorist element. Per WP:NOTNEWS, no one was injured or killed, no terrorist element, not notable. – The Bounder (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per the prosecutors, "there was not enough serious evidence of terror legislation breaches" so the terrorism charges were dropped, and this should be carefully reflected in the article to maintain WP:NPOV. Regardless, the nom questioned the notability, and the latest controversy and the fuss in the news (every single day now) make the attack (terror-related or not) clearly notable. -- IsaacSt (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IsaacSt: no, it was not a permanent coverage, the attack was covered only during 1 or 3 days. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The attack took place two-and-a-half weeks ago. Here’s just a sample of the barrage of mentions in the English-language media in the last couple of days: [10]. The French-language media has even more than that, BTW. -- IsaacSt (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IsaacSt:Media coverage serves only to deny the first elements. In short nothing new. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Trivial, curent news with absolutely no lasting significance. It might conceivably have been notable hadi t actually be a terrorist attack, but it wasn't. The possibility, and the similarity to events that actually were accounts for the coverage. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.