Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 2017 Melbourne car 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017 Melbourne car attack[edit]

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

Note: The below nomination has been withdrawn by the OP with no outstanding delete votes and may be closed by any experienced uninvolved editor. See the statement at the bottom of the AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:EVENT. Long term significance is likely to be negligible at most. Fails the WP:10YT. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Article appears to be a clear example of one of the more pervasive problems on the project, namely WP:RECENTISM. Quoting EVENT...

Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

- Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ad Orientem has a pretty good point there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 00:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has not been 24 hours since this event occurred and a formal interview with the perpetrator who committed the act has not yet occurred. I think we need to wait at least another day until the police reveal more information, the interview with the perpetrator is conducted and what the government will do before we decide whether it should be deleted or not. (121.220.56.35 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

What we should have waited for is compelling evidence of long term significance of this event before rushing to create an article. What do you envision coming out of the police interview that is likely to make this an event of enduring importance? [On the off chance that something does pop up in the next seven days that screams long term importance I will happily withdraw the nomination.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 00:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The driver has yet to be formally interviewed, so an act of terrorism has not been ruled out. If it is determined that this was not terrorism, but instead a mental health issue, then I will support deletion. As the article already has some substance, there is no harm waiting until the motive is clearer. WWGB (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this turns out to be a terrorist incident, so what? Terrorism is not listed as an automatic pass at GNG. Terrorist incidents occur almost daily and most don't get articles. There were no fatalities here and I am not seeing any credible claim to long term significance which is the principle issue here. If this is to be kept someone needs to make a credible argument that this incident is one that will have significant long term importance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Notability of terrorist acts. Input there may help this debate. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Inevitably, despite all the reasons to delete, I believe this "article" will be kept simply because editors follow one half of WP:RAPID but I will offer at least one policy-based !vote. Whether this is terrorism or not is irrelevant, yet appears as an automatic pass as a consequence of WP:RECENTISM. The news always reports on these incidents in the exact same way but Wikipedia is not news and is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In a major failure of BLP, we hastily labeled this an "attack" which implies terrorism yet the suspect more than likely was mentally ill. The only logical thing to do is delete this "article" and wait for potential in-depth coverage and a lasting impact; until those occur, this is just sensationalize news.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An attack does not necessarily imply terrorism. Even an attack by a mentally ill person is still an attack. If he was ordered or compelled by threat by someone else to do it, it's still an attack. If he created a diversion while his mates robbed a bank, it's still an attack. I'm not saying this was an attack, just that terrorism is not the only criterion. Akld guy (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say this exactly but got hit with an edit conflict, well said Akld guy. Murchison-Eye (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that it is a terrorist attack by a lone wolf one. BernardZ (talk)

BernardZ you obviously haven't read any of the most recent reports if you are calling this terrorism. Ad Orientem if you want me to strike my vote so you can withdraw, let me know. Very few editors base their !votes on policy when terrorism is implied, let alone taking place, so an actual discussion on notability will be near-impossible.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer TheGracefulSlick, but unless someone can come up with a credible policy/guideline based argument to keep this, which so far has not appeared, I have no plans to withdraw this nomination. I am nailing my flag to the WP:N masthead. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orietem I'm sorry but after seeing the addition comments, I needed to strike my !vote before I blew my top. I'm ashamed of most of the editors here and this AFD is just another example of how poorly we handle recent news events. For the sake of my sanity please reconsider and re-nominate for deletion in about a week.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to be a lone wolf attack. It has massive media coverage, large numbers of people involved, the Australian Prime Minister is talking about it extensively. BernardZ (talk)

In what way does this establish any long term significance? Please see the quote from EVENT that I posted in my nominating statement. All kinds of things get wall to wall coverage for a short period. So what? We are NOT A NEWS service. How will this be important in ten years? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been less that 24 hours so I think this is a bit hasty. I consider 19 injuries in a deliberate attack in melbourne to be notable. Murchison-Eye (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article about an event with no clear long term significance so soon was a bit hasty. If this turns out to have some significance it will emerge over the next few days, and I will happily withdraw the nomination. Otherwise it should go until significance can be established. And no, short term wall to wall news coverage does not establish notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This one bothers me as 1. A discussion was already started on the issue here: Talk:December 2017 Melbourne car attack, and 2. As I said in said discussion can we wait for at least 24 hours to pass while the story settles? I'm going with WP:RAPID for this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We already have an article for the January attack, I don't see why this shouldn't have one. A vehicle-ramming attack with more than a dozen injuries in the middle of a busy city doesn't deserve an article? That's ridiculous. – numbermaniac (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been determined to be an attack yet. Akld guy (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:RAPID for now .The real question is whether it meet WP:LASTING in the long term ,that is tough to say at this point .But as of now it is keep.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, we can revisit if it failed WP:LASTING. Lorstaking (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely for now, likely for later. PvOberstein (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Arguments by others like WP:RAPID have convinced me. No harm in having this article around to see how things develop. Can always AfD2 in a while. Now, would you all please visit Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Notability of terrorist acts and share your views. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep with no prejudice against renomination in a month's time. Per WP:RAPID; it's impossible to demonstrate that there won't be long-lasting coverage at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:RAPID. Coverage is extremely wide at this time.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the article creator, I acknowledge that I jumped the gun a little. A number of the keep !votes in this AfD are irrelevant and not policy based, but in my mind the article has passed WP:GNG. Of course WP:EVENT seems to be a higher bar that's trying to filter out sensational coverage of 'flash in the pan' events. It's very possible that the government policy impact will probably be sufficient to push it over the line in the long run (e.g. January 2017 Melbourne car attack), but of course WP:CRYSTAL invalidates that argument to a large extent. If we have to delete this and undelete it later then that's not the end of the world, but I'm happy to wait this out per WP:RAPID as well. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Attack with many injuries. Also, new investigation has opened to incident whether it was terrorism or not. Thus incident has encyclopedic value.JBergsma1 (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – For the most part I agree with Ad Orientem. Wikipedia is not news. News coverage alone does not show that it meets the notability guidelines, and it's definitely too early to say whether the event has any lasting significance (see WP:LASTING and WP:EVENT). I personally think it's a bad idea to rush in and create an article on a recent news event when it's unclear whether it will have lasting notability. However, as others have pointed out it's probably too early to have a deletion discussion. It's concerning though that many of the Keep votes seem to lack any reference to policy or guidelines and are instead based on opinion. Kb.au (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination with great reluctance out of deference to the clear CONSENSUS, although I strongly disagree with it. IMO no credible policy/guideline arguments were presented that support keeping this article. In all of the Keep votes not a single credible argument was presented indicating any long term significance for this EVENT. The absolute silence from the Keep votes in response to the issues I raised including NOTNEWS and RECENTISM seems to be symptomatic of a broader issue, which is to say this is becoming extremely common on the project. Articles about sensational breaking news events are quickly created and no amount of arguing policy or guidelines can get rid of them. Given how routinely NOTNEWS and RECENTISM are simply ignored at AfD and elsewhere I am compelled to wonder if it is not time to treat them as de-facto WP:HISTORICAL. All in all this AfD has been exceptionally disheartening and while I am bowing to the CONSENSUS in order not to waste the community's time, I reaffirm my very strong conviction that the outcome is patently inconsistent with existing policy and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this on your talk-page, but my rebuttal would be: Why have WP:RAPID then included in our guideline? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:53, 22 December 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.