Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcazar Library arson 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. Consensus is the recently creating article about the building - Alcazar (Marseille) - should be worked on instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alcazar Library arson attack[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

False information mixed with lack of notability Dynamo128 (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the information on the article appears to be incorrect. 76.232.20.197 (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the article? You only need to read the beginning to see "deliberately badly damaged by a large fire" -- "deliberately", OK; "badly damaged" nonsense; "large fire", nonsense. Athel cb (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moderately badly damaged by a moderately-sized fire? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that. I might add that I live within walking distance of the Alcazar (well, not now; I'm too old to walk more than 100 m or so, but 30 years ago, yes), and my wife has lectured there. Athel cb (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly in the article is false? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting from the article talk page:

A lot of, shall we put it politely, mendacious media is reporting that the library was burnt down, when in reality all that happened was some external fire damage to the building and windows being smashed: not a single document was destroyed or damaged because the protesters failed to enter the building. Look no further than the third source (https://interviewtimes.net/riots-in-france-continue-for-the-third-day-as-rioters-burn-down-the-largest-library-in-marseilles/) claiming it has "burnt down" when that never even happened. In light of this, I fail to see why this article is necessary considering it was such a minor event, to me all it does is help promote a conspiracy theory. I think this article should be removed, and possibly replaced with an article on the library itself.

The library is set to re-open next week, there was some damage to the exterior of the building and some glasses got smashed, but considering we are dealing with riots, I fail to see how such an event of minuscule magnitude has any relevance for Wikipedia? The very first line said that "the building was heavily damaged by a large fire", which did not happen, this wasn't the Notre Dame fire. --Dynamo128 (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and, well, I forgot to vote. Delete, of course. --Dynamo128 (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The framing of this article is textbook blatant WP:POV bordering on deliberate hoaxing. Examples:

At the time of its arson, the library was one of the biggest in France, containing nearly a million documents. This is clearly meant to imply to the casual reader that a million documents were burned.
The window of the library was smashed. But, the protesters failed to completely destroy the library. Not only is this crucial info buried near the end, the wording in failed to completely destroy is self-evidently unacceptable for an encyclopedia.
As pointed out above, the sources are all unreliable and even misleading. The only reliable source, the BBC, doesn't mention the library at all.

In short, damage to some windows and exteriors of a building is not even remotely notable, and can be covered in a sentence in the main Nahel Merzouk protests article. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I completely agree with you. Yes, the Alcazar was attacked, but the damage was minor and external. It's very worrying that it happened at all, but far worse things have happened in the past few days (like the attack on the house of the Mayor of L'Haÿ-les-Roses). Athel cb (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As explained above, this violates WP:POV and potentially WP:SOAPBOX --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change the title to Alcazar (Marseille) & make the article about the building, including a section about the fire. The wording can easily be improved. The building is notable & the French article is good. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim 2 Michael: You can go ahead and create a new article for the library. There's only one salvageable paragraph here, and you'd be better off writing it from scratch with better sources. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the article about the building needs to be started from scratch. Reword this one & source it better. The French article can be translated. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translating the French page of the library would in effect be the same as creating a new one, so... --Dynamo128 (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim 2 Michael: An article about the library would be different from an article about this incident involving the library, and thus the history of this article (especially in this woeful state) doesn't need to be preserved. Just create a new article if you care enough to write it. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Background & Arson sections, as well as the photo, would be useful for an article about the building. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even the background content about the building is more WP:BOLLOCKS than fact. The image comes from the fr.Wikipedia page about the building. Facts and citations are distorted. Architectural landmark? yes. Ancient monument? hardly. Biggest library in town is its biggest center of research, of course. Most researched site? distortion of the citation given. The arson content has only a tenuous relation with the facts. There is nothing worth salvaging. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not worth preserving. If anyone actually wants to create an article about the library, just create a new article with new sources instead of WP:BACKWARDing it from this mess. 〜 Festucalex • talk 02:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and France. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to creating an article on the building. This event is not notable enough for a page unless the building is independently notable enough for a page on en.wp. If someone translates the page, the single sentence added to the fr.wp article about this event seems to be proportionally due weight. WP:DUE, WP:10Y, etc. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repurpose to an article on the building, which is clearly notable. French article here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, what you are actually voting for is delete, because the French article is an article on the building itself and not on this event (which would thus become at best a redirect), and the article about the building would need to be started from scratch here even if using a translation from the French page. Furthermore, the article as it stands already has a redlink to the (non-existent) English equivalent of the French page, further underlining how it's that one that should be created while this removed entirely. --Dynamo128 (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I'd been voting for deletion I'd have said "Delete"! Instead, it needs renaming and repurposing, not deleting. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor news event done in the Breitbart News style, incendiary lede unsupported by the later more factual content. Fails WP:V, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SOAPBOX. If the library is notable, start over from the fr:Alcazar (Marseille) article, rather than this nonsense. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You show you are blinded by leftwing bias by referencing Breitbart. 71.173.76.38 (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you talking about? Breitbart is considered an unreliable source and its usage is not permitted on Wikipedia. If you think we are all "blinded by leftist bias" (whatever that even means) then I don't think you'll have a very good time with this site's policy on sources. --Dynamo128 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the Breitbart style with this article in mind: "Revealed: 1,000-Man Mob Attack Police, Set Germany’s Oldest Church Alight on New Year’s Eve." (Can't link directly as the link as the site is blacklisted, but here's some context: [1]). A sensational and inflammatory lede is followed by content saying that's not what really happened. A stray firework from New Year's Eve celebrations set a small fire that was extinguished in 10 minutes. In the case of Alcazar, "badly damaged by a large fire" is both sensational and grossly hyperbolic. The following statement, "protesters failed to completely destroy the library," is more factual only because the rioters only vandalized the exterior. A citation in the article says they expect to reopen in a few days. Barely rates a one-sentence mention in an article about the protests. Again, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. and pretty much everyone above, the page as it is is clearly not fit for purppse. The keep !vote and another suggest a move and repurpose, but this is back door deletion, in any case. If we change the article and pretty much all the content, it is a delete by another name. There is a definite case for an article, based on the French article, per Necrothesp, but reading that article shows the little history that has been written here is wrong and needs a healthy dose of TNT. The building was a theatre until 1966. It was not repurposed as a library until 2004. So creating an article is fine, but this article needs deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

link This is trending on twitter.. 173.163.190.30 (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted tweets, or as we call 'em in the industry, the Paragons of Truth 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was a horrendous, traumatic attack on the culture and heritage of the indigenous people of France. That makes it notable. We do not downplay or brush under the rug attacks against indigenous cultures, or anyone, as having "lack of notability".

The wikipedia page appears factually correct. S138008 (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, KEEP. S138008 (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC) — S138008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Will you provide reliable source citations that support these assertions? The article doesn't have them. The article stretches the truth to the breaking point, concerning both the importance of the building and the damage done. It misrepresents the sources it cites. While the article isn't a pure hoax, it appears to be less than 50 percent factual. • Gene93k (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to emotion using language that virtually no person in the world would in regards to an event like this even if it were real ("attack on indigenous culture"? really?). Which, of course, doesn't even matter since if you think none of the parts of this article appear to be incorrect, I have to question if you even read the article or bothered to check any of the sources... --Dynamo128 (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k and Dynamo128: I gather this AfD has gained attention on far-right Twitter, and thus we got a bunch of IPs (and this one WP:SPU) coming here to troll. Remember, WP:DONTFEED. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, duly noted. --Dynamo128 (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/elonteslaholic/status/1674799695254925316?s=20

It's so easy to search on any social media. Not sure why Breitbart is blacklisted. It's owned by CCP. Aren't we CCP owned now? So should be any MSM corporate owned media until the Smith Mundt Act which allowed propaganda in 2012 in the US is rescinded or replaced.

It's insanity that there is this much effort to whitewash truth. 173.163.190.30 (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources you've posted are a blacklisted site known to be a sensationalist tabloid at best, and deleted tweets. Not exactly persuasive. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the many problems already discussed. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised the main subject does not have its own English article, the best solution as mentioned above is to AfC from the French translation and then merge this article into that in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The keep votes are mostly all arguing for a completely different article to exist with a completely different name. The delete votes are persuasive. I'm concerned that this AfD has been extended for another week for "clearer consensus" given the problems already observed by the nom and others arguing for deletion. -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge Appears to be a solitary incident as part of widespread protests and therefore not not notable for stand alone article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have created a page, Alcazar (Marseille), translated and sourced entirely from the French article, save one reference to the recent fire which I found myself in Le Monde. The French article tone is a bit off in my view, but for the initial translation I tried to stick to it faithfully to preserve attribution. Copy edits from this point on to make it more encyclopaedic are welcome. Creation of that article does not change my view that this one should be deleted. Nothing in this article can be merged into that one, as anything beyond the one line of text from the French article on the fire is undue, and the history on this page is wrong. Editors might wish to consider redirect as an alternative to deletion, but I oppose that because I don't actually think the subject of "Alcazar Library arson attack" has anything but ephemeral significance. People are not going to be searching for this in the future. Yes, redirects are cheap, but this one is really not necessary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, I was going to attempt a translation myself once I returned home only to see it has just been taken care of. Thank you kindly. I completely agree with you that, even though redirects are cheap, this is a case where an outright delete is the better option. And the presence of this article now, as far as I am concerned, voids any concerns about needing to merge the existing page into this or that article. --Dynamo128 (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2023 (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.