Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 NY Times Square attack

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus.  Sandstein  13:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 NY Times Square attack

2017 Times Square car crash (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)

Wikipedia is not news. This event occurred today in a high-profile location in New York City; however, it is quite presumptuous to call it an "attack" or "terrorism" (note the category on the article), and indeed it would appear that the local authorities currently consider it to be an accident ([1], [2]). This is an unfortunate, tragic event, but it does not rise to the notability criteria for events. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better with a weak keep? I think it might be better to just have the article the next 7 days. If it doesn't become notable in one week, we can still delete it.--Rævhuld (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have a reasonable argument. As it was before, the article didn't have enough to survive, but I was on the fence. I think it does now, even if NOTNEWS makes my support shaky. It'll be worth checking back in a few weeks. For now though, I am a Weak Keep here. South Nashua (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the tag stays there for seven days, an administrator will check the article and delete it if he or she agrees with your reason.

— Wikipedia:How to delete a page#Proposed deletion
  • Delete. if there were a speedy criterion ,it would apply,. This is not even remotely encyclopediaworthy, and is exactly what NOT NEWS is meant to keep out. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but let it run the full week to see if notability emerges. Even though there there is 1 dead and over 20 injured, and it was in Times Square, news accounts are reporting that the driver was either on drugs or drunk, and has a record of DWI. It looks like NOTNEWS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC) changing iVote to k; see belowE.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia is not news. Local auhorities currently consider it as an "accident", and not as an attack. If investigation reveals something, the article can be created again. But wikipedia must not label accidents as attacks or acts of terrorism. I am also going to perform a bold move of the page. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 PS comment: Not sure if I should move the page/rename article while it is being discussed here. Requesting help regarding that issue. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK it's not explicitly prohibited but it's probably not a good idea either. If consensus is to keep then I think a move would be in order. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear whether the incident is a terror attack, though initial speculation was that it was accidental.

— Business Insider
We don't know if it was an accident. If we just keep the article for 7 days, as it's usual, the article might be notable or will be deleted. And to your question: no, the article shouldn't be moved before this discussion is over.--Rævhuld (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the tag stays there for seven days, an administrator will check the article and delete it if he or she agrees with your reason.

— Wikipedia:How to delete a page#Proposed deletion
(edit conflict) @Kuyabribri: But during that period, incident that is considered to be an accident for now; wikipedia will be stating it is an attack. I think it should be renamed, and then mentioned here.
@Rævhuld: I just checked, it is allowed to move articles during an AfD. Better than soreading hoaxes.
@Oshwah: requesting your opinion. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the tag stays there for seven days, an administrator will check the article and delete it if he or she agrees with your reason.

— Wikipedia:How to delete a page#Proposed deletion
  • Struck for now. Seems like this has several stories spinning off from it that give a pretty good indication of continuing coverage. Not quite at keep yet, but enough doubt in my mind to strike my delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but not true. Sad to say, but a fatality in a car crash does not make it notable, since there are something like 30,000 fatal car crashes every year. The 22 injured is more unusual, but is simply because it took place in a very crowded area and not on a highway. So far, there's nothing about this event which is unique. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.[1] For every 1 person killed in a motor vehicle crash, 8 people were hospitalized and 100 people were treated and released from the ED.[2] But I don't that having 2-3 times over average people hospitalized is enough to make it important for Wikipedia.--Rævhuld (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Road Crash Statistics". International travel, road crash, pedestrian safety, country road condition. 2013-11-24. Retrieved 2017-05-18.
  2. ^ CDC; CDC (2014-10-07). "Motor Vehicle Crash Injuries". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 2017-05-18.
  • FWIW I think it's a mistake to take this in a direction of debating what sorts of accidents/contexts are significant or unique, and which are not. Ultimately, the circumstances, uniqueness, etc. don't matter to whether this is kept or not. All that matters is that it receives significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject over a period of time (etc. per WP:EVENT/WP:GNG). If it's unique, particularly devastating, etc. then it's only more notable in the sense that those sorts of events are more likely to receive the necessary coverage. Wikipedia is supposed to be a lagging indicator of significance, so there's (or there's supposed to be, anyway) a pretty high bar for covering something that has not existed long enough to demonstrate lasting significance (i.e. Wikipedia should not be among the first media to cover a subject). passing that bar would mean there's practically no chance that it won't receive lasting coverage. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep It is too soon to know the details, but WP:TOOSOON does not apply to breaking news stories as far as I can tell. That this story is currently worldwide news is making it potentially notable (for now), simply because we don't know the full picture. (Here in the UK we're currently hearing it might have been a drunk driver, and a terribly sad incident.) WP:BREAKING has been met by means of the current event template. WP:RSBREAKING and WP:BREAKING both advise waiting a day or two for accurate news stories, and not rushing to create content. However, unless we invoke speedily delete, or push editors towards WikiNews (I see nothing there yet!), we can't stop this happening. Therefore, we should wait for the AfD period to expire, during which time we will all be able to determine whether WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies, and remove it if appropriate so to do. Later opinions in this AfD thread may well end up bearing more weight than the earliest ones.Nick Moyes (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as "authorities were quick to reassure the public ... that the incident was a car crash and not terror-related" ([3]) so the event does not appear notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. I would normally vote !keep on articles like this, but the article is an especially flagrant violation of WP:NOTNEWS, since its probability of passing the ten year notability test has yet to be determined. It's a regular drunk driving car crash. It was tragic, yes, but there was no more malicious intent behind it than a person who even decides to drive while drunk. There are 10,000 deaths like this every year, yet we don't include articles for them all. At best it mentions a passing mention in the Times Square article. epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: How can something be an especially flagrant violation of a policy if you then say the probability of it passing a policy on notability has yet to be determined? If it has now been determined, of course, I might then be agreeing with the first half of that assertion. What we need is a Move to WikiNews template. Is there one? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: The preliminary evidence suggests that it was a drunk driving, not intentional. However, the definite cause is yet to be determined. And no , move to wikinews doesnt exist. epicgenius (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
struck part of original comment epicgenius (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunate and tragic though it was, the fact that it wasn't terrorism related means it is unlikely to stay in the news on its own steam. --regentspark (comment) 01:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an unfortunate incident, but I doubt very much it will prove to have any lasting note. It's already fading from the news by this evening. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One dead isn't a lot, but twenty injuries is a few. The famous setting gives it some oomph, and there are plenty of rhetorical questions for news outlets to ponder when it comes to crazy sailors. Was he secretly crazy when he enlisted, did long hours at sea cause the voices, should society do more to help, should government do more to monitor, etc. Give it a week, and if it's still "local man crashes car", delete it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying the news will apply that standard, and that'll provide us with our enduring coverage and in-depth analysis standards. The "scourge" of synthetic marijuana is also a fairly sexy topic; this might become the thing lawmakers point to most. Might not. Let's see. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Excellent example of WP:NOTNEWS. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Keep- Time has shown that WP:NOTNEWS no longer applies and that his is a notable event. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The facts come from news sources. Formatting, contextualizing and paraphrasing them into content takes time and effort. An online draft would at least let those who work on developing high-profile broad daylight crowd-ramming articles work together. And it would better suit the "delete for now" bunch to track when (or if) it becomes noteworthy enough. Can't do that if the Keepers are all writing individually in Notepad/TextEdit/Whatever, and it's hard to want to write anything from scratch if they think a Deletionist will delete it for being too recently deleted already. Once it's been burned twice, forget about it! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis for legitimate barristers to decide that. For now, police say he tried to kill 21 people. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — PaleoNeonate — 13:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Delete It sounded like terrorism, the location is a hot target, everyone wants to be the first to write about it.... but as the excitement fades is it notable? It is still on the front page of CNN. I think as it unfolded and was investigated it was generating "buzz" but now will fade away as just another tragic vehicular manslaughter.GtstrickyTalk or C 14:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second-degree murder doesn't mean manslaughter. Third-degree used to. Second-degree is no accident, just more spontaneous than first. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This one is notable for (allegedly) being a murder and mass attempted murder in an unusually public space. There's an obvious difference between a routine brief and a New York Times feature. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is this article is notable because it's located in a more densely populated area as opposed to a rural highway somewhere. However, a car crash in a city will naturally have more news articles about it than a comparable car crash in the country, precisely since the car crash in the city is closer to more news sources. epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a guy tried to kill 21 people on a rural highway, that'd be notable, too. News organizations aren't tethered to their headquarters. Even in 1988, they had networks capable of reaching Old Salisbury Road. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. But the road is less densely populated, which makes the deaths more likely to be premeditated murders in the case of Old Salisbury Rd. I think we should just wait a week or so (the length of the AFD) to determine whether this is still notable afterward. epicgenius (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The not guilty verdict in that case actually made them not premeditated murders. Fixed now. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, never mind my comment then. epicgenius (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is indeed a tragedy, but it's not encyclopedic, certainly at this point and based on the sources available. I'm not even sure the incident merits a mention in the Times Square article. Alansohn (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer content to WikiNews and also Delete from Wikipedia. I have struck out my earlier opinion as this is now clearly WP:NOTNEWS, and also initiated a proposal at WikiNews on whether a way ought to be found to allow templating of an article with good, WP:NOTNEWS content which would benefit another Wiki if they were alerted to it, rather than simply losing all that useful content at the end of RfD discussions here. Sounds like a dead duck though, thanks to Wikipedia's content licencing. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's clearly notable based on the sources. (A "road accident" is notable or not depending on how much attention it gets—it has nothing to with whether you personally think it should be considered important.) Everyking (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not !voting delete because we "personally think it should be considered important", we're !voting delete because it's a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. SkyWarrior 00:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it's not a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS doesn't mean you get to just delete anything discussed in the news no matter how much attention it gets. Most of the delete votes essentially amount to "I don't think this is important and people really shouldn't be giving it so much attention". Of course, we should let the sources decide what is important, not our individual preferences. Everyking (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. All that policy says is most newsworthy events don't qualify, giving routine news for an example. This happens to be newsworthy, but also meets all criteria in WP:GNG. If newsworthiness itself was grounds for disqualification, every event article would be a violation, especially the post-Wikipedia ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: All the criteria except one, WP:SUSTAINED. epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As these are always lacking at this point, even when Muslims do it. As of now, there are plenty of stories from various major outlets in the last two hours about ongoing investigations. I'd say that counts as "off to a good start". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but this begs the question, why can't it not be mentioned on the main article for Times Square? Why does it need its own article specifically? That is the issue being discussed here. epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Same reason Khalid Masood's rampage can't be solely mentioned at Palace of Westminster. Too many sources have too much info exclusively focusing on that particular event, its motivations and repercussions. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here is that there's not as much information about the car crash as during the London attacks, or during other attacks where this was done with a terrorist intent. epicgenius (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks about the same to me, discounting the rampant speculation about whether and how the intent could somehow be linked to terrorism. In Masood's case, it ultimately couldn't, rendering much of that "information" pure noise. Since this suspect's still alive, it makes sense for the news to exercise relative restraint, since solid answers will be forthcoming at trial and can be reported then instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Everyking: What NOTNEWS says is that Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Like this newsworthy event. Although tragic (and covered by national media), it probably doesn't pass the ten year test the same way that something like 2016 Nice attack does. All the sources basically say that there was a driver under the influence, and while under the influence, he ran over pedestrians in a particularly high-traffic place. However, if there had been a strictly terrorist intent, this would obviously be kept. epicgenius (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 00:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There are some indications this might lead to some changes in Times Square. [4][5] If this happens then it would probably be notable. FallingGravity 00:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a good keep reason. If the incident leads to a redesign of Times Square, then it would warrant a mention in the Times Square (or a Redesign of Times Square article if the redesign is extensive). However, we won't know that for a long time, years perhaps. In the meantime, all we'll have is an article about a single tragic incident. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I've added the mentions of possible changes to the main article about Times Square. My edit had a passing mention of the event. epicgenius (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this incident was a car attack, not a car accident. - EugεnS¡m¡on 07:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronly keep. According to the perpetrator the act was deliberate and thus not an accident: "Driver in Times Square rampage shouted 'I wanted to kill them,' prosecutors say" https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/19/times-square-accident-vehicle-rams-charges-filed/101868394/# Being an attack the article about the incident must be kept. Metron (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant international news coverage and continuing coverage nationally.Michael5046 (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came to Wikipedia to read on this. If deleted, it would have be bad to human knowledge. This article meets Wikipedia regulations by having widespread coverage not only nationally in the USA but also in other countries. WKP1 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was initially leaning toward delete when I first came across this Afd a couple of days ago, but additional developments and the resulting continuing media coverage by reliable sources do grant this incident lasting notability.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry, but the "keeps" here are all still blowing around in the winds of the moment. There's no concrete proof at this time that this was a deliberate attack, just a lot of speculation, rumors and partial information. Calling this an "attack" in order to justify having an article about it is vastly premature, and the media coverage is already beginning to fade away. To the closer: the "delete" !voters have all cited specific Wikipedia policies for why this shouldn't be an article, while the "keeps" all boil down to "it's a news story, so we should have an article" which is part of no policy that I'm aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is dealing with a moving target, and the notability of the incident is becoming clearer as coverage of the incident is proving to be more intense and more sustained that it would have been if it was a run of the mill DUI. Observing this is not "blowing with the winds of the moment". As far as whether it was a deliberate attack, Rojas has been charged with second degree murder, so if it goes to trial, that can be sorted out there.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do articles and wait for the subject to become notable, we do articles on notable subjects. If the subject is not notable, there should be no article, period. If it later becomes notable, an article can be written. We are not a news services, we are an encyclopedia, and if there's any doubt about the subject's notability, deletion is the proper course of action. Again, "keep" !voters have failed to cite a single Wikipedia policy to support their !votes, so they amount to WP:ILIKEIT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, we do not wait for a subject to become notable. There is no dispute that this incident has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, but what is in question is the "enduring notability" of the incident, and whether coverage is in-depth and not in passing, per WP:INDEPTH. In most cases, this can only be properly assessed a few days after the event at the soonest, which is why WP:RAPID recommends waiting a few days before nominating an article for deletion. However, the coverage this incident has received is in-depth, is no longer just in passing, and it has become clear that this incident does have enduring notability.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that is a totally ridiculous assessment. The incident occurred just 2 days ago, there is no way in hell that "enduring notability" can have attached to it. The plain fact is that the article should never have been created in the first place, and should have been immediately speedied when it was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article probably should not have been created when it was, per WP:TOOSOON. Police were still treating this as an accident at that time, the media was reporting on it as a likely accident and possible DUI, and there was no assurance that this incident would have enduring notability. However, just as WP:N(E) says we should not rush to create articles on breaking news events, it also says we should not rush to delete articles on breaking news events, as a clearer picture about the subject's notability will emerge with time. In this case, as time has passed, it has become clear that this was not just a routine DUI or a routine car accident. The incident has received sustained coverage over three days, with no sign of that coverage ending any time soon. Per WP:PERSISTENCE, editors can't know for certain whether an event will have further coverage or not, but just because an event occurred recently does not mean it is not-notable.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: (above, I voted delete) This news hasn't gathered "international attention". It was briefly mentioned on a few news channel when it happened as "suspected act of terrorism". Later there was another passing reference that it wasn't considered as an act of terrorism anymore, and investigation is going on. That's all. Indian media has already forgotten it.
Also, the article has a lot of content now, it is well sourced, and in encyclopaedic tone. But it still is a road accident (tragic one though). I don't think it is notable. It will be all forgotten in two months. Not notable event. WP:EVENT. Events that are notable for an encyclopedia are those that have caused, impacted, or were a major contributor to - significant cultural, historical, governmental, societal, and/or global impact and with lasting effects. Our druggie driver's road rash will never achieve these feats mentioned above. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (also ! voted delete above): Multiple delete !votes are saying that there is no way this is an accident. None of the news articles did say it was an accident, and none of the delete !votes said as much. But it's not an attack either, just a drug induced crash.epicgenius (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Police are treating this as an attack and reliable sources are calling this an attack [6]. Attack just means that it was intentional. There does not have to be any terrorist connection for it to be an attack.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tdl1060: In regards to There does not have to be any terrorist connection for it to be an attack—that is true but the implications of using the word "attack" nowadays is that the crash was a terrorist attack, whereas "crash" says what it really was. It doesn't matter what the dictionary definition is; if a word provides an implication of something else, then it is a loaded term and should not be used. epicgenius (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're not discussing whether attack should be used in the title or within the article, we are discussing its use in this deletion discussion, so whether one considers it a loaded term, with an implication of something else is irrelevant. The term was accurate, as it was used in this discussion.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's not irrelevant. See WP:POVTITLE. epicgenius (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a deletion discussion, so WP:POVTITLE is irrelevant here. We're not discussing whether the page should be moved back to a title with the word "attack" in it, and whether we call it an "attack" is not relevant to whether the article is kept.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing whether to delete an article where !keep voters are claiming it's an "attack" and therefore it's notable. That's not necessarily true. I think BMK explained it well in the comment below mine. epicgenius (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also can't see the relevance. Various voters are calling it various things here, none of which should be taken to mean they want these words in the title. Is there a specific piece of that policy that clearly has to do with deletion discussions? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I thought we were talking about WP:TITLE. Oops epicgenius (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But even if it was intentional, that does not necessarily make it notable. Every murder is intentional (that's what separates it from manslaughter), but not every murder is notable and gets an article on Wikipedia. People go off their meds and push other people to their death from a subway platform. There's news coverage, but it ain't notable, no article. Wives kill husbands, husbands kill wives, domestic violence ends up in death - no article. We're not the police blotter, we're not "The News in Review", we're an encyclopedia, which is why we have notability requirements. Again, not a single person who wants to keep the article has given a Wikipedia-policy based reason for doing so, it's all "news coverage", which is necessary, but not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that it was the individual's intent that makes it notable. It is whether the coverage of an event is significant and not in passing, per WP:INDEPTH, and the coverage of this incident is significant and is not in passing.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? Of course not every murder is notable, but some of them are. Most murders don't get news coverage that's anything like this. In any case, it's irrelevant whether it's a murder or an attack—the only thing that matters is the attention received by the event, reflected by coverage in reliable sources. If some guy got a flat tire and it got this level of media attention, that would be notable too. Everyking (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody feel like deleting Flat-Tire murders? Decapitalizing? Unhyphenating? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under what Wikipedia policy of "notability"? Please cite something specific, and don't simply wave your hands and say that news coverage makes it notable, that's not how we operate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that that is how we (here at Wikipedia) operate, WP:NOTABILITY means that if an event has been covered repeadetly from different angles, and my different "reliable" news sources that it becomes notable enough in itself, several news articles have been written about the perpetrator, and the one dead-victim alone, various interviews with her father, and his military veteranhood, and criminal records made public. This story has evolved beyond the mere mass-attack.
--42.112.158.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep changing my iVote for several reasons; struck my delete vote near top of page. one reason is that media coverage on a scale that confers notability. To me, this looked like tragic but simple dwi. I bow to the judgment of major media which have continued to cover the story intensely and in depth.[7] Even though this coverage will eventually fade, the notability conferred by this level of coverage is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. My 2nd reason is the one pointed out by User:FallingGravity; the incident has sparked a round of interest in the security of pedestrians in Times Square, and in other crowded New York pedestrian areas and sidewalks, with Mayor Bill DeBlasio saying that the city will review how to better secure these areas and media demanding more bollards. Deadly Times Square attack highlights NYC pedestrian safety[8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why not redirect to Times Square with a mention there regarding security? That bit appears notable, the car crash/person who committed the crime does not (WP:BLP1E). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect to Times Square for the same reason that I oppose redirecting school shootings to the article on the school, i.e., that it gives WP:UNDUE weight to a rare violent event. In this case, it is also true that the Times Square article is already very large.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At 66.2 kilobytes, I don't think the Times Square article is very large. All we need to do is add a sentence there about the crash, or even a paragraph; it can be done without going into a coatrack about the crash. I already added the stuff about bollards, which is probably the only lasting impact of this impact. epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a relevant event, WP:NOTNEWS only applies if something has very low and localised coverage, (one can think of Alexandr "Russian Deadpool" Karpakov's shooting of girlfriend while on drugs, the leader of a non-notable Feminist & "Skeptic" (Atheist) group shooting someone out of paranoia, a Non-Hispanic Russian immigrant, if it had more coverage could've been notable, but that's a recent event in which I would say that WP:NOTNEWS would apply, this event has been covered by various different sources long after the vthe initial attack.) this event clearly isn't simply "a news story", it's now a part of history with plenty of coverage. --42.112.158.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— 42.112.158.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: can everybody now acknowledge that this was not an accident, but a deliberate attack? This is what reliable sources are saying.VR talk 18:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for two reasons. First, as noted above, this is a deliberate attack. It may or may not be terrorist, but it certainly was no accident. Secondly, this attack is proving up to be a wake-up call for pedestrian safety. In NYC, there's a lot of analysis and thinking going on as to how this happened, what prevented it from being worse, and how to mitigate it in the future. (See NY Mag, NY Daily, NY Post etc.) Thus, the notability of this attack is likely to carry on into the future.VR talk 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a few reasons; one, this was a large-scale attempted murder spree, which thankfully only resulted in one death in this particular case. There are a number of mass shootings that end up being posted on Wikipedia, which are not deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that it was vehicular should not make it worthy of deletion. Two, this person was severely mentally ill, and was denied psychiatric help, which is a major, noteworthy issue in the United States, which will likely lead to highly notable fallout as a result of this incident. Three, as others have noted, this can apply under pedestrian safety in Times Square. And, finally, the DWI part is also noteworthy, and, though the situation itself may fall under WP:NOTNEWS, the resulting fallout likely won't, and will lead to significant changes. The Legacy (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anything that looks like an obvious terrorist-style attack should be kept. As the driver was able to drive perfectly safely all the way to Times Square before executing his brazen attack, it is completely obvious and easily proven that his maneuver was not caused by any drugs, mechanical failure, voices, or suicide by cop. It was a planned, calculated mass attack in exactly the same motive as Islamist terrorists. There needs to be a category for attacks which are terrorist in method but lack proof of a link to a political motive. Bachcell (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few issues with this comment: terrorism is politicaly motivated, and secondly, we must report what sources say. When reliable sources don't clearly indicate it is terrorism, classifying the incident as such would be original research, which Wikipedia must avoid doing. Of course, if over time investigations and reliable sources demonstrate that it was, the article will be updated, or rewritten with that perspective. Even if the crash was voluntary, it could be a crime of another type like a revenge, honor crime or an incident because of psychosis or other causes producing delusion and hallucinations... When we don't know yet and can only speculate like I just did, we should simply summarize what sources say and let the reader infer. — PaleoNeonate — 03:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast who those who claimed that "enduring notability" has already attached after only 2 days of media coverage, there is already a dearth of media articles dated today, an indication that the incident is slipping back into the background, and will probably only be mentioned again when Rojas comes to trial, or in the context of adding more safety features to TS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-trial proceedings will be covered, too. If he pleads not guilty, the trial will almost certainly be multiday. Then there's a verdict. Whatever it is, there'll be analysis. Maybe a sentencing or institutionalizing hearing next. Plenty of opportunity in prison or the bin for follow-ups. There are still victims left with potential recovery stories, too. Far less done and over with than when everyone dies at the end. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the argument that "Anything that looks like an obvious terrorist-style attack should be kept. ", backed up by a discussion of the evidence , would violate the principles of NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V. Something that "looks like" something that is clearly notable, but none the less is not, does not belong in an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as coverage is still ongoing, indicating the notability of the event. If it was a genuine WP:NOTNEWS it would have stopped by now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Keep voting are embarrassingly unconvincing; basically, "the incident looks bad, we should keep it". Ensuring coverage cannot possibly be determined at this time. Look forward a few months from now and tell me if there is lasting coverage. We don't wait for articles to be notable: they either are or they are not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RAPID is not a keep rationale. It's canceled out by its immediately preceding section and has no actual connection to the subject (i.e. it applies to anything that just happened). And yes, making a claim of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE requires a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Hence, there is no evidence of continued coverage (there is not evidence of continued coverage until there is). There are exceptions to the rule -- effectively a pragmatic IAR -- when an event is so obviously significant that people are ok using a crystal ball, and what's at issue here is whether this is one of those scenarios when we're pretty sure it will receive continuing coverage (putting aside crystalball). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of course. Don't think we would've been having this discussion if it was a religiously-motivated incident. Is this meant to imply that the perpetrator behind this one was motiveless? Mar4d (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it implies a reluctance to fear something familiar. For the most part in the English world, the dark cloud of jihadism and honour killings tend to be seen as something seeping in from outside, something that can be blown back if enough light is shone upon it. The dark cloud of drug abuse and schizophrenia is a Western staple of modern life, as has been since before we were born. Our eyes adjusted to our surroundings and our screens until many stopped seeing the problems.
But the problems remained, and thousands more have been killed by followers of the disembodied voices coming from inside their own heads and amplified through stress and chemicals than have been killed by those who listened to the voices coming from the Quran and amplified through repetition and minarets. So many more so, that the television-endorsed brand of terror simply stopped being scary. The druggie lunatic became a hokey caricature, progressively cornier from the 1970s on and then virtually overshadowed by the post-9/11 transmissions of doom and anxiety about the new constant threat (which still make casting a Bronx Navy veteran in the monster's role seem tasteless).
Since the Internet conquered television, we can see that many pockets do see the relative value in remaining vigilant about our mental health and appreciate the levels to which someone can sink through the cracks if left unwell and ignored, but to today's mainstream horror, mystery and suspense fans, it's Islamic terrorism or nothing. And in a way I can't blame them, because it's easier to get invested in a story that leads to logical conclusion than an angle that just drags, and America is conceivably way closer to wrapping up the War on Terror than going anywhere in particular with the War on Drugs. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, 25 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_NY_Times_Square_attack&oldid=1139196407"