Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 failed Gothenburg terrorist attack

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. I read the ANI discussion and whatever WP:CANVASS violation that may have occurred has likely bee completely countered by the outside attention. Roughly, there's just under 2:1 in favor of deletion (and almost as many "note to closing admin" comments); WP:NOTNEWS/WP:ONEEVENT is the ultimate outcome... — Scientizzle 14:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 failed Gothenburg terrorist attack

[edit]
2011 failed Gothenburg terrorist attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

clearly WP:NOTNEWS. no one killed even injured. Evacuations and arrests happen all the time. LibStar (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy by Al-qaida link.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep investigation underway by Swedish police and SÄPO. No way to know how this will turn out. Got press outside sweden in major publications/news sites. Libstar is also wrong about the notion that evacuations and arrestes happen all the time, atleast not evacuations were the police have suspicion of attempted terrorist attacks in Sweden. They are all under arrest on the higher level of suspicion too. Anyhow I say keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that Libstar didnt send me a notification of this AfD as is expected. Just for future reference.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you found this AfD in about 1 hour of it being created. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By chance.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would have been good if you received a notification, but no, the absence of notification has no bearing on the article's notability. Tomas e (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a news agency. Not a noteworhty event. - DonCalo (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is built on news. we even have an ITN section.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also notable per Al-qaida link.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That link is speculation. /Julle (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, no. That's not even speculation, that's just plain wrong. They are rumoured to have links to al-Shabaab, a political fraction in Somalia (with links to al-Qaida, though I don't see why that would be considered that important in 2011, when al-Shabaab is a probably much stronger force than al-Qaida). /Julle (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The men has been described as three men from Somalia and one from Iraq with links to Al-qaida. And it has recieved lasting coverage not dying out in a day or two. And how can we even have an indication fo lasting coverage after 2 days? If that is the premise we go after then it has recieved lasting coverage by mention in most national and international news sources since.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2011
Also notable per Al-qaida link.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the sources of the article I can find CBS reporting that one tabloid, Expressen, known as one of the least reputable news sources in the country, says that anonymous sources suspect that they have links to al-Shabab, which in turn have links to al-Qaida. Taking that information and saying "they have links to al-Qaida!" is not a way to build a dependable encyclopedia. /Julle (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now investigators think that the men have links to an Al-qaida group. So I wouldnt call this yet another failed terrorist attack. Had it been in Iraq or similar were these kind of attacks happen quite frequently I would have agreed but when it almost happened in Sweden I think it is notable. And in the closeness to the September 11 attacks 10 year anniversary in the US you can wonder if the attacks was planned to bring news for al-qaida and disturb the anniversary by bombing Sweden a country with little terrorist security and an easy target for Al-qaida.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Investigators haven't said so officially, no. What the tabloids write isn't necessarily true. And al-Shabaab isn't "an al-Qaida group". They are a political group in Somalia – bigger, stronger, and probably have more blood on their hands than al-Qaida. Leave al-Qaida out of this and, if you necessarily want to argue the point, say that the men (and it hasn't even been proven that this is something the investigators agree on) are suspected of having links to al-Shabaab. /Julle (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
single purpose account, with no real reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't looks like a single-purpose account at all; it has four edits on completely unrelated info. Blue Crest (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge: the entry on the current events portal can stay, but i agree that this probably doesn't warrant an article of its own. Is there a Crime/Terrorism in Sweden article? Maybe put a sentence about it in there. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue this wouldn't warrant mentioning in a "Crime in Sweden" article. /Julle (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps its time to check trough what canvassing is. Because you seem to not fully understand it. Just a suggestion. It is a difference between canvassing and notifying.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"We don't know how this will turn out" is no argument for notability, but rather for not having an article at all on this specific subject. See WP:CRYSTAL. Tomas e (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a valid argument. The main distinction between "routine" (non-notable) and "non-routine" news coverage is to check to consider what would happen after an event. This appears to be non-routine news coverage - And it doesn't violate Crystal ball to think "gosh, what could be the result of this event?" - We use that thought process all the time when we consider notability of a news event. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 173.241.225.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. "potential for hundreds of deaths", every plane that takes off has potential for hundreds of deaths. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about trying to "canvass" an opinion?--BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
does not fit the definition of WP:CANVASS, suggest you read it. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I generally don't want to delete articles because of the quality, but this has no substance what so ever. Latest news (and I'm sorry if you can't read Swedish, but all the best and the best updated sources will be in Swedish when we're talking Swedish criminal cases) is that they won't even be prosecuted as terrorists but for "förberedelse till mord", conspiracy to murder. The law doesn't recognize them as terrorists. There's some speculation that their target was Swedish artist Lars Vilks. If so I'd say we could add a sentence or two about the case in the article on him – but later, when we have the facts! /Julle (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
how is the event notable as per WP:EVENT. seems rather routine terrorist arrest to me. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about trying to "canvass" an opinion?--BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
does not fit the definition of WP:CANVASS, suggest you read it. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No direct connection, so that claim has no relevance whatsoever to establishing the article's relevance. The autumn session of the Swedish parliament opened this week, and its main focus is the 2012 budget. It is customary to announce various upcoming measures over the week or two leading up to the release of the full budget proposal, different ministries on different days, to give several different ministers a chance to be in the news. Tomas e (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin Please check my voting record, I have not voted in any AfDs since this accusation. I have voted in 30 AfDs. I have voted 13 Keep, 14 Delete, 1 Merge/delete and 2 Redirect. Please put LibStar on notice for false accusations and harassment as he spreading this false statement on multiple pages "this !vote was canvassed given that Ryan.germany !votes keep at almost every AfD." about me. --Ryan.germany (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You call it canvassing, I call it notifying. Which is perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines--BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I don't ever respond to canvassing by other editors. see WP:CANVASS. my edit history shows no responding to canvassing ever. LibStar (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. However, I was not responding to the canvassing accusation. I was commenting on your voting history (you often vote "Delete") and on your style of arguments (typically WP:JUSTAPOLICY or WP:GOOGLEHITS, which are considered "not good arguments" WP:AADD). Every Wikipedia article comes downs to sources, sources, sources. Challenge the sources. If the sources don't hold up, there is nothing else to worry about. --Ryan.germany (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
how did you know to come to this AfD? LibStar (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar - I came across very good advice on a user talk page that I would like to quote "Comments are welcome, but if you've come here because you've been following me around at AfDs, I suggest you desist and WP:CHILL. I will not respond to comments from wikihounders. otherwise feel free to make constructive comments." It doesn't get any simpler than that. It is interesting to note that you voted on an AfD page, where I too voted on, just 6 minutes after I place my comment here. Wikihounding? --Ryan.germany (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
clearly WP:NOTNEWS is not a question of sources, it's question of policy. otherwise WP would have articles on every event that got reported (which is what BabbaQ is hinting at). LibStar (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin -- It's kind of hard to tell from the above discussion, but it seems as though User:BabbaQ has been canvassing editors who !vote keep to come to this AfD. So far, the user has refused to acknowledge this and has removed the questions about this behavior from his talk page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first line in the Canvassing page states: In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, and that is all that I have done. Then if some users that usually like 90% of the times !votes delete disagrees with that doesnt make it canvassing. I simply notified users of this AfD mark the word "notified" not telling them in anyway how to !vote or my own opinion in the matter, I personally dont think I have the powers to make someone change their mind or similar. Could it potentially be that these users are smart enough to come up with their own decision? Just imagine.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if you're trying to avoid the question or what, but no one was saying your message wasn't neutrally worded. But you posted it to a bunch of editors who had no connection to this article outside of the fact that the voted keep in past AfDs! That is canvassing, plain and simple, and is not acceptable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agree with Yaksar, from WP:CANVASS "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions". LibStar (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin -- In my opinion it seems like some users here keeps bringing the alleged canvassing situation up more because they are just angry that it has been many independently made Keep !votes while them themselves !voted delete and are of an delete opinion. I dont think these "canvassing accusations" would have been made had a majority been in favour of delete. Which I find disturbing. These users !voted keep by looking at the article and making their own personal decisions in a in my opinion clear cut Keep case, lets face it!. That is my last comment to this situation, I dont want to disrespect all those keep !voters intelligence.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it has something to do with the fact that yo seem to be willing to break the rules to get what you want: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbaQ/Archive. - DonCalo (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "War on Terror conflicting", but I very much doubt you'd find a good definition that both covers this event and makes it the first. See 2010 Stockholm bombings. /Julle (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
being sourced is not a reason for keeping. otherwise we'd create articles for every event reported in the media. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've made your opinion about the article abundantly clear, so there's no real need to respond to every !vote and comment. Let other folks express their opinions, yours will be given due weight even without the repetition. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like BabbaQ responding to every delete vote with the comment that an alleged Al Qaida link automatically makes something notable? VanIsaacWScontribs 03:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both editors should stop repetitions remarks. It's true that AfD should be a conversation and not a vote, but (cf. Monty Python's Argument Clinic, simply repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make a discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An attempted terrorist attack in a country with little history of such acts is extremely likely to have enduring notability, as this article passes the regular notability guidelines, that should be enough to keep the article. If the entire world forgets about this in a few months, perhaps deletion should be revisited, but again, it seems likely this will continue to receive attention. Monty845 03:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"extremely likely to have enduring notability" is purely speculation and WP:CRYSTALballing. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be WP:CRYSTAL, everyone arguing that this is WP:NOTNEWS and or WP:EVENT is doing the same thing. We shouldn't delete an article that passes WP:N on speculation that it will not have enduring notability, especially in a case where the nature of the subject make it likely it will receive prolonged attention. Monty845 14:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except, yet again, and I do apologize if I'm repeating myself, but I feel this is an important point: al-Shabaab shouldn't be described as "an al-Qaida group". The article should be enough to explain why. (That if such a connection would be established, of course. The conenction to al-Shabaab is what a Sweidsh tabloid reported that anonymous sources claim the investigators are suspecting. Surely, that is not a way to build a dependable encyclopedia?) That has, to me, absolutely nothing to do with whether this article is relevant or not. Al-Qaida is not the only important terrorist organization, or militant Islamic fraction, in the world. Al-Shabaab is probably more important today. /Julle (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Not the case, as JohnCD says above, merge to Wikinews is NOT possible and as WP:NOT is policy (ie not a guideline) those advocating keep have to show enduring significance and as no refs outside the 48 hrs of the event have been provided this has not happened. Mtking (edits) 00:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This failed terrorist attempt did not highly happen as 9/11 attacks in the US, and its not an important story. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already explained above, no, it's not. See 2010 Stockholm bombings. /Julle (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, to be honest. On English Wikipedia we are mainly working with English sources. Barack Obama is the president of the most populous English-speaking country, so of course, what he does far more easily gets covered by big media in English, compared to what happens in Sweden. However, from a global point of view, if we're going to look at (English) media attention as a criterion for relevance, then that will seriously unbalance how we judge relevance in the US compared to Russia, Canada compared to China, Britain compared to Algeria and so on. (And if we, on the other hand, would turn to Swedish-language media, then of course this got more coverage.) /Julle (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was about the need to show more than news coverage at the time, so to avoid falling foul of the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy there is a need it to show enduring notability of the event by showing coverage after the time frame of the event. Mtking (edits) 11:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is the true threat to the Wikipedia, editors who wish to turn us away from an encyclopedia and into an arm of Google News. Editors who approach article-writing with the mindset of "X number of mentions in sources == article creation". WP:NOTNEWS to a T. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who have called for deletion have actually given reasons grounded in project policy or guideline, so that quite handily punctures your "whimsical" claim. If we really wish ti speak of whimsy, Your point of view rests squarely in the "it's useful" realm of fantasy. Tarc (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know you're out of touch with the big-picture purpose of Wikipedia - it's an encyclopedia! - when you think an article's usefulness in providing informative content lies in the "realm of fantasy". Deterence Talk 14:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An encyclopedia covers what is notable, what is important. Not every scrap of every event that happens in a day. When you can learn to differentiate between the mundane and the newsworthy, you'll be a better editor. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article provides useful information to anyone doing research on terrorism in Europe. The article does no harm. I am at a loss as to why so many people are hell-bent on censoring this information. Deterence Talk 21:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, my reasons for voting to Keep this article are entirely consistent with WP:ITSUSEFUL (I have provided reasons) and WP:NOHARM. Perhaps you could have another look at those policies. Further more, your link to WP:NOT doesn't actually say anything. The fact remains, this is an encyclopedic article that provides referenced informative content for anyone doing research on terrorism in Europe/Sweden. Deleting this content will do Wikipedia, and the readers of Wikipedia, a disservice. Deterence Talk 23:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the biggest point between War on Terror and Sweden, but the 2010 Stockholm bombings was an incident. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that there's practically nothing to base it on. Four men have been arrested. That's pretty much what we know for certain. The rest is rumours and speculation. /Julle (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I disagree with Tarc every time he opens his mouth, but I agree with him on this. There is the constant issue with editors of niche subjects that feel that every little blip in the media that involves their niche demands a new article be written about it. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Period. Trusilver 06:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously... without a doubt. This article is about a total non-incident and fails WP:NOTNEWS utterly. This reminds me of the aviation wikiproject and how its members want to make an article every time a plane hits an especially hard bump on the runway. Trusilver 17:09, 17 September 2011 (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/2011_failed_Gothenburg_terrorist_attack&oldid=1140204521"