Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buckingham Palace incident

Add links
From 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 delete. – Joe (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham Palace incident[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Buckingham Palace incident (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)

The previous discussion was closed as "no consensus", mainly because of RAPID arguments. Fortunately, RAPID no longer applies, but NOTNEWS has never been more apparent. The novel nature of 2017's most inept "terrorist" made for a "good story", but left us with no impact. An inept editor will claim the location and unrelated attacks around the same time brings notability by ignoring NOTINHERITED. An inept editor will observe "ongoing coverage" by ignoring its routine nature and the gaps between this so-called "ongoing coverage". And, of course, the inept editor will ignore our notability guidelines for events, chiefly its warning of recentism bias and: A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. I have confidence, however, that the majority of editors voting here are not nearly as inept as this "terrorist". TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A minor incident that resulted in three minor injuries and no deaths. I am sure that there have been many such "incidents" of various types at Buckingham Palace in the past couple of centuries. No objection to mentioning it in a list article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:DIVERSE and WP:GNG.WP:NEWS doesn't apply as it not similar to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities".--Shrike (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And here is the source from January 15 [1]--Shrike (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To say NOTNEWS does not apply to crimes when our notability guidelines for events begs to differ is a clear case of ignoring a legitimate rationale.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You wrong interpretation of policy is almost never gained a consesenus so yes its WP:IDHT--Shrike (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for you Shrike, the times they are a-changin'.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per ongoing, diverse, international coverage of this rather unusual event (an Uber driver who allegedly can't navigate and uses a samurai sword for an alleged terror plot). Amply meets WP:NCRIME. Calling an attempted sword attack by an Uber driver routine is bizarre. Routine applies to " routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." - which this is not.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Let's focus on "attempted" for a second. What's bizarre is your use of the word "attempted," since no attempt was ever made. The word insidiously makes this a bigger event than it (happily) was. See, according to all sources, the apprehended person was arrested by the police in his car before he had the chance to do anything. Kudos to the police for being vigilant and engaged; boo hiss to Wikipedia editors who use words as Humpty Dumpty does. -The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is coverage - which in this case we have - in depth, wide - even international coverage. As for your stmt "bizarre is your use of the word "attempted," since no attempt was ever made." - this is contradicted by WP:RS - An Uber driver who allegedly injured police officers with a sword outside Buckingham Palace has denied terror offences.[2] (not that it matters one iota - as coverage - diverse, indepth, and wide SIGCOV is key for event notability).Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the article is going to stay up alright, I've no illusions about this. And, perhaps, those who believe it should be kept up might have valid reasons. The discussion here, as far as I'm concerned is pure damage control, against yet another instance of casual and frivolous inaccuracy, sprinkled with sleazy hyperbole. For your information, the charges about the injuries to the police are distinct and separate from the charges about "preparing to commit a terrorist act." According to the prosecution, the former were actually committed, and the latter were being "prepared" to be committed. But who cares, right? -The Gnome (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete A flurry of coverage in August for this News of the Weird item, a couple of references in the next "crazy person at the palace" story in December, and then a few local stories in January as the first round of the court case cranked in. Lasting interest? Apparently not. Another WP:NOTNEWS isolated incident. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe, There are so many sources on page that you may have missed this X marks the self essay in the London Review of Books in which novelist Thomas Jones uses the incident as teh lede for a review of a book about satnav fail. The essay opens "In August, a man with a sword was arrested near Buckingham Palace on suspicion of preparing to commit an act of terrorism. Westminster Magistrates Court heard that the man, an Uber driver from Luton, had intended to go to Windsor Castle but his satnav directed him to a pub called The Windsor Castle instead. Without stopping for a drink, he drove on to Buckingham Palace. It isn’t clear if he was still relying on the satnav for the final stage of his journey, or whether rage at the mistake was a motivating factor in his alleged offence. Three police officers were said to have received minor injuries; presumably he hadn’t stopped to ask them for directions." My point is that this inept, sword-wielding, wannabe jihadi caught a good deal of attention as a poster child for incompetent absurdity - not only as a sort of satire of inept jihad, but because he was an Uber driver who couldn't use satnav.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a tabloid for every incompetent wannabe terrorist. You have to do more than brandish a sword, like Richard Reed, the "Shoe Bomber". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction, he didn't 'brandish' a sword, he allegedly reached for it in the passenger footwell when clallenged by 3 police, and was immediately overcome by them. Even less dramatic than 'brandishing a sword'. Pincrete (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was planning to brandish it. -The Gnome (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"An Uber driver who allegedly injured police officers with a sword outside Buckingham Palace has denied terror offences."[3]. Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that perp drove his car at a police van stationed in the restricted zone at the Palace. Driving into that security zone is illegal, they arrest people for doing that at the house of the head of state in pretty much every country, which is why they had moved to arrest him before he picked up the sword or started injuring officers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source (WSJ) actually refers to "A restricted area" not "THE restricted zone". Driving into such an area is a relatively trivial traffic offence. Anyone who knows Central London would know that almost all of it is 'restricted' to one degree or another, UK sources don't even mention this fact since it is so trivial. Pincrete (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The defendant injured police officers while he was being arrested. That, in itself, does not constitute a terrorist offense; it's attempted grievous bodily harm to a police officer and resisting arrest. Why aren't more Wiki editors sticklers for accuracy? -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because editors follow WP:RS - as the defendant pleaded not guilty to a charge of preparing to commit an act of terrorism on or before the incident on 25 August.[4].Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have nothing to worry about. No one is going to accuse you of accuracy. Preparing to commit an illegal act (robbery, murder, etc) is not the same thing as attempting an illegal act. Which is precisely what I called you up on. The rest is irrelevant. I could give you a few refs myself that indicate the distinction but that'd be a waste, so, take care now. -The Gnome (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Herostratus' sake. And what a title! Does that incident really qualify as the Buckingham Palace incident? (I thought it'd be about Prince Philip protesting the corgis' use of his toilet.) -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per WP:SIGCOV; but move to Buckingham Palace sword attack as per common name. Perp leaves a suicide martyrdom note for his family, "Tell everyone that I love them and that they should struggle against the enemies of Allah with their lives and their property,... The queen and her soldiers will all be in the hellfire.”, drives to royal palace, shouts Allahu Akbar! and attempts to attack security officers with sword. Coverage has been ONGOING since he drove to the wrong palace last August, and and it includes INDEPTH coverage in major media. Also: it is dysfunctional to bring an attack that happened almost a year ago to AfD shortly before the trial gets underway; the charge is: preparing to commit an act of terrorism. Readers do expect us to have pages on about trials that are in the news.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of holes in this. How does SIGCOV, a guideline, superseded NOT, a policy (hint: it doesn't)? How are the suspect's suicide note and the phrase "Allahu Akbar" (bolded for dramatic effect) parts of a policy-based rationale? Where does it say it is "dysfunctional" and I must wait for the routine report announcing the conclusion of a trial? And where does it say readers expect us to report on this like the news instead of them reading...the news?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sword attacks (or terrorist attacks) are not a routine news occurrence in the UK. In fact, they have been rather non existent in the 21st and 20th centuries (Jack Churchill wielding his sword overseas for the most part). Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need not bother about the forensics for "sword attacks" because, well, the incident was not about a sword attack. This is that the police are saying, but I'm game if someone knows better. The arrested individual did not have time to do anything, if he indeed intended to do something. (The trial is precisely about that. My opinion is that he would certainly attempt something but Wikipedia treats personal opinions like crap.) Plus, you might want to review what you wrote about terrorist attacks in the 20th century before I go World War One on you. You want swords, I can give you swords. You want terrorist attacks? Oh, come on now. And let's not start about state-sponsored terrorism.-The Gnome (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
False-grounds-for-defense alert. Readers and users of Wikipedia do not and should not expect Wikipedia to provide news coverage. The reason is that, ho hum, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Hell, it's not even reliable! Surely, you are looking for WikiNews but they're next door. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, as we are treating the sword attack via continuous, in depth, secondary coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "irrelevant" are the concerted attempts to present Wikipedia as a news source. It is not, it is officially not; and some people looking it up as a news source does not change that fact. Someone recently died and their Wikipedia article gets (hopefully) updated; this does not make Wikipedia a compilation of obituaries. Keep at it all you like, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor a news source. Arguing that "[Wikipedia] readers expect us to have pages on about trials that are in the news" is DOA. Nope, I'm not referring to the snowball clause. The article might stay up after this AfD but this will not be done because "hey, people read the news here!" -The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Topic meets WP:NCRIME criteria with WP:INDEPTH WP:COVERAGE that has WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSEITY, and WP:PERSISTENCE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it meets diverseity, then that's alright. -The Gnome (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No serious objection to merging this somewhere but the list you're proposing is about people who survived assassination. That'd be the royals, supposedly. -The Gnome (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen survived this assassination attempt and so qualifies. The list contains details of each attempt, including a column for the would-be assassins and so an incident such as this would fit in just fine. Andrew D. (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen (and family) were in Balmoral at the time ...and no source has even suggested that any 'Royal' might have been a target. Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Could someone please provide reliable sources that report/corroborate that item about the defendant leaving behind a note that read The queen and her soldiers will all be in the hellfire? The only sources that contain a report about a letter, in the exact same form, too, as sewer pipes such as the Daily Mail (here), The Sun (here), or Breitbart News (here). Then, it goes further downhill, with blogs like jihadwatch. I can find nothing in The Guardian, The Independent, or The Times. Is there actually any substance to the letter allegation? A lot of the arguments above are based on the letter. Gimme a ticket for an aeroplane. -The Gnome (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go [5]--Shrike (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a subscriber to this particular journal so I cannot access the full text. But thanks anyway. -The Gnome (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
paywall work around: Wall Street Journal, 1 September 2017, Buckingham Palace Terror Attack Suspect Got Lost En Route to Original Target an INDEPTH, reported story (the 2nd long, reported that the Journal ran on this attack,) relevant paragraphs: "Court documents said just before Mr. Chowdhury left his home in Luton, where he lived with his parents, he wrote a letter to his sister in which he said he would be in paradise by the time she read it, according to the documents. 'Tell everyone that I love them and that they should struggle against the enemies of Allah with their lives and their property,' he wrote in a Word document on his laptop, which was later seized by police. 'The queen and her soldiers will all be in the hellfire.'In interviews with police, Mr. Chowdhury said Queen Elizabeth II was the root of his problems and that he wanted to “confront” police because they work for the queen. He first decided to carry out in attack that morning, but hadn’t determined an exact plan, he said." E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the first serious media source about a letter I come across. Still wonder why other media have not picked up on it. It's not as if The Times for example are a "lefty rag" that "defends terrorists." Anyway, thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no lasting significance or societal impact; it's clear at this point. The event is an incident insufficiently notable for the encyclopedia; does not meet WP:10YT. I'm not buying the argument that because it took place in near the Palace or was covered as a curio, we must include it. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is, of course, one of the long series of vehicle-related security breaches and attacks that have led to the new security bollards recently installed around Buckingham Palace]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EMG, you say one of the long series of vehicle-related security breaches and attacks" - "one of..." suggests that it was just one incident among many. I'm not sure what point you are making then. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that the "lasting significance or societal impact" of the recent Islamism-inspired attacks - including this one - is cumulative. The Islamism-inspired attacks of recent years have brought dramatic changes to London, not the least of which are security screens at the entrances to buildings, London bobbys carrying guns, and the bollards that have sprouted across the city. All of this is new, none of this happened in response to the 20th century IRA bombings, and it is a real impact. Shocks my old mum, who remembers better times - but you don't have to be very old to remember the time before contemporary Islamism-inspired terrorism caused these changes in London. Just old enough to remember the 7 July 2005. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot just claim "cumulative impact" for every incident and ignore WP:NOTINHERITED. We are discussing this incident, not this or this. If "cumulative impact" is the best you have (it's the best I have seen), you have only demonstrated that this incident belongs in a list.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating my iVote for GracefulSlick: k as per WP:SIGCOV demonstrated by meeting WP:NCRIME with WP:INDEPTH WP:COVERAGE that demonstrates WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSEITY, and WP:PERSISTENCE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I support measures against terrorists that would most probably appear as harsh and excessive to many people here. As also it happens, I have not one single word of sympathy for terrorists, or their justification for their crimes. My personal stance, however, I try to keep out of Wikipedia work. Here, for example, I could have promoted maximum exposure of all terrorist-related incidents, no matter how distant or how truly related to terrorism they are. I could be doing this on account of my pro-Israel sentiments, my Jewish identity, my personal trauma from terrorism, or my fears for kin living in terrorist-targeted areas. (All this is offered as an example; it might or might not bear on my real-life identity.) At the end, however, I choose truth and honesty and metron, as best as I can, in my limited ability. I might often go wrong in my choices, but I do try to follow those stars. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. -The Gnome (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except no sword attack took place! The most that could come out of the court case is intention to commit an attack. But why let facts get in the way of a good title? Pincrete (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no lasting significance, no societal impact, no reason to believe it will cause such. Insufficiently notable, does not meet WP:10YT - or even WP:2YT. Great stuff for end of year trivia quizzes though! Pincrete (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mainly per the proposal which there is no point regurgitating. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2018 (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/Buckingham_Palace_incident&oldid=836689950"