Talk:Louvre machete attack

Notability issue

I really see this as WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:ROUTINE coverage...

• 1. No mass killings, the suspect lightly wounded one person.
• 2. The usual reactions to terrorism
• 3. Splash in the news coverage, can anyone provide some evidence on the WP:LASTING impact?

Id rather not start an AfD and go through the 7 day process so I am asking for a discussion here first. Also please keep in mind WP:OSE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Tomorrow it will have been one week since the incident, and it's fairly clear there will be no significant follow-up. I think AFD is the only way to successfully turn this into a redirect to List of terrorist incidents in February 2017, but we might be able to get consensus here and save the hassle. (in case it isn't obvious, my !vote would be redirect). Primefac (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. But do 'note that at the very least there will be follow-up as the attacker is investigated and brought to trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I would opt for a redirect as well which is why I started the discussion here for alternative options. To the AC, I have also been in that position as well when creating an article that was later redirected due to non notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am afraid these sort of cases have unexpected consequences. For example, who in July 2016 would have thought that the New York Times would have cited the Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray beheading as part of a pattern being continued with the Louvre Machete attack? If a couple of weeks later the Saint Etienne article had been summarily deleted, where would the encyclopaedic context reside? The NYT in fact wrote that the Louvre attack joins "In just the past 13 months, at least four attacks in France using knives, including..." I recommend waiting at least a further 13 months, and possibly 26, before deciding if these various attacks grouped by the NYT should, perhaps, all be merged into a single article. Certainly if 26 months go by and there are no further incidents, the NYT's group will be able to be considered closed. XavierItzm (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear Note that Islamist attacks have a way of coming back into the news cycle. For example, the 2015 New Year's attack plots to attack a restaurant New Year's Eve party in 2015 made headlines again a week ago when new evidence emerged that it was not merely inspired by ISIS, but actually planned and directed remotely from Syria. The 2015 Gush Etzion Junction attack was back in the news [1] because Bob Kraft invited the family of the murdered American student (who was a Pats fan) to come watch the Superbowl in VIP seats. As I have argued before in these pages, it is far more efficient to create article in the aftermath of high-profile terror attacks receiving international coverage than to go back years later and create 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush (immediately brought to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush) or 1996 Paris Métro bombing (immediately brought to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Paris Métro bombing), because WP:RS are easy to find and not paywall protected in the period shortly after an attack. Such article survive AFD because they pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note however that my argument is that this attack is notable as established by sources. And WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to go off topic but I have to make a parenthesis and say the New Year's Eve Party terrorist plot takes a whole new significance... as the NYT reports, instead of a "lone wolf," we now have a "remote-controlled attack", with the minutiae directed step by step by the Islamic State. An IS attack in the U.S. homeland. Wow. Didn't even know that. I am floored. XavierItzm (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I know. It's truly shocking. And the number of "lone wolf" attacks in France and Europe that turn out to have been planned and directed from Syria is astounding.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Meanwhile the article continues ot be expanded as new material and analysis is published.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Greg there is no notability here, it is a run of the mill attack with no after effects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, "allahu akbar" terrorist attacks in the West are now "run of the mill." Normalized! XavierItzm (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Improper redirect

On Feb 13 User:Primefac redirected this page [2] after a 4-day discussion in which 2 editor participated. Courtesy notices were not sent to any of the editors who had made contributions to the article. This flies in the face of WP:MERGE which is very clear in stating the controversial merges should be handled by templated with a banner (Wikipedia:Proposed mergers). However, Primefac appears to be aware that in a controversial area like terrorist attacks it is usually necessary to take the discussion to to AFD; he states as much, "I think AFD is the only way to successfully turn this into a redirect to List of terrorist incidents in February 2017, but we might be able to get consensus here and save the hassle." He did not, however, seek to obtain consensus. He simply moved it, asserting "as per talk" in the move edit. This is not responsible editing. Nor is the assumption that it is now "one week since the incident, and it's fairly clear there will be no significant follow-up." Which, in addition to violating WP:CRYSTAL is disproven by the fact that significant press coverage is ongoing, and very likely to continue since the attacker survived and will be be investigated and tried.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Sincere apologies for my actions, I was not in a good place and I shouldn't have been editing Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)