Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism crisis in France

:{{la|Islamic terrorism crisis in France}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamic_terrorism_crisis_in_France Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Islamic terrorism crisis in France}})

This definitely appears to be original research: the sources used do not talk about an "Islamic terrorism crisis in France". They verify the facts of the attacks but do not talk about them collectively, so this article is WP:SYNTH. Basically: notability as one event/phenomenon is not established. Best to have two separate articles (January 2015 Île-de-France attacks and November 2015 Paris attacks) that reference each other. Loeba (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Original research. It also says "The Islamic terrorism crisis in France refers to" like there's an official name for it or something. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - we do not delete articles simply because they are controversial. Clearly notable, good sourcing. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research: no secondary sources refer to this group of different attacks calling them "Islamic terrorism crisis in France" or saying they constitute an ongoing armed conflict. Nykterinos (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This has been ongoing for months now, and even though most of the attacks have been foiled, that does not mean that it should be deleted. Perhaps the title could be reworded. This article makes it clear that this is WP:NOTABLE [http://qz.com/550521/its-no-coincidence-that-terrorists-keep-targeting-france/]--Franz Brod (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

:*Notability isn't the issue though, nobody is arguing that the events aren't notable. Look at the deletion rationale more closely. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - This is an original synthesis. - SimonP (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Maybe with more information such as statistics and miscellaneous facts and such, this could be a great article. Delete - Never mind. I agree that this does seem like original research, and that it's superfluous. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - There's already an article about Terrorism in France. I haven't seen the term "terrorism crisis" on the news etc, so it looks like original research. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep but rename - the article name doesn't seem consistent with our usual conventions for articles about a series of related events, but the information itself is well-sourced. Cynical (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not sure how it can be regarded as well-sourced. At this moment there's a total of 6 sources, all of which describe separate attacks but do not discuss them together. There is nothing to support the idea of an ongoing crisis; yes, France has had several terrorist incidents in 2015 but unless/until media outlets start talking of them as a connected, ongoing problem then Wikipedia can't be the first to decide and declare this. --Loeba (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete and merge useful content to terrorism in France, which which it is redundant to. 108.52.36.49 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing new, quite a lot of original research, unsourced. Skycycle (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Just to point out that we have a whole schema List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL and related categories, which is a lot more focused. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Besides the synthesis, this is redundant to terrorism in France. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Agree with User:NinjaRobotPirateand others. Why draw a line at 2015 and break this off as a separate article from terrorism in France? There were Islamist attacks in 2012, too. If it's because this is a distinct ISIL campaign that's a legitimate reason for a separate article, of course. But then we'd need to move the article to a new name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• But the January attacks weren't claimed by IS (while the November ones were) so we can't talk about a "distinct campaign". --Loeba (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - OR, also there's no need for this article since we already have Terrorism in France.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Original research. Ceosad (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - this is different from Terrorism in France because it is about a conflict with a specific set of groups taking place during a specific time. They are connected while all terrorism in French history isn't connected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.247.68.210 (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:— 73.247.68.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Claims of significance and notability entirely consist of OR and WP:SYNTH. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 01:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep: This article can and should be as important in talking about the French terrorist attacks as the 9/11 article is in talking about American terrorist attacks.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: Obviously notable and reliably sourced. Verwoerd (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: notable.GreyShark (dibra) 05:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

::On the issue of sources for "crisis" - [http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/nov/15/australia-free-trade-talks-eu-malcolm-turnbull The Guardian]. There are however multiple more on "terror campaign" like [http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/15/politics/democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-secretary/ CNN].GreyShark (dibra) 19:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

:::WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a good standalone argument to make in a deletion discussion. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Other than the concerns that are stated above and in the article's talk page, the Belligerents table shown in it, explaining who against whom, is a glare example of erroneous over simplification and un-encyclopedic approach. MarkYabloko 05:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research and concocted interlinkage. WWGB (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and because this duplicates the Terrorism in France article Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SYNTH. Sources do not specify 'crisis.' Buckshot06 (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep and rename back to Islamic terrorism in France as umbrella article for {{cat|Islamic terrorism in France}}. 95.133.216.22 (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Synth. Someone has confused Wikipedia with The Fox News Channel. --Calton | Talk 11:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I'm obviously at WP:AVOIDCOI here, but I can't comprehend how some people can go on here and say that over 150 civilians murdered this year alone due to terrorist activities in a developed country is not a crisis. France is even in a state of nationwide emergency, for God's sake. For those saying it's "basically" the same as Terrorism in France, that page is just a list of terrorist attacks in France since the 1950s. It doesn't even point out the recent wave of Islamic terrorist attacks or why they're happening. Plus, multiple sources do mention it to be a crisis, and specifically use that word. HalloweenNight (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Only one source has been added so far that specifically talks about a crisis in France (I just removed some others that talk about a general world crisis, so don't support this very specific article). And that source [https://www.rt.com/news/321987-france-recent-terror-attacks/] isn't exactly the strongest, what is "RT"? I would definitely want to see more, better quality sources before accepting that the article should stay. --Loeba (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• RT is only one of the biggest news providers in the world with millions of followers and billions of YouTube views (Actually #1 TV news network on YouTube). I can't believe you've never heard of them. HalloweenNight (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Okay, but based on our article it is a pretty controversial source. --Loeba (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• RT is Russian government propaganda, and of no value whatsoever. Nick-D (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per @Fireflyfanboy. --Article editor (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep --74.190.105.14 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) — 74.190.105.14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete WP:SYNTH. We need more WP:RS sources linking these attacks. RT (TV network), the only source that I can find supporting this narrative of a unified series of attacks, is a Putin mouthpiece with a strong incentive to push this POV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Islamic terrorism in France is better name. 178.94.166.186 (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• I would vote to Keep and Move (& redefine) the article to Islamic terrorism in France (or Islamist terrorism in France. This would be similar to, but narrower than Terrorism in France and would presumably begin with the 7 February 1984 killing of Gholam Ali Oveisi by Islamic Jihad Organization and Hezbollah and the 25 July 1995 attack on the Gare de Saint-Michel – Notre-Dame (8 dead) by the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research and covers the same ground that Terrorism in France should. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Islamic terrorism sadly in France isn't a new thing if you are talking about the current issue then we have November 2015 Paris attacks, if you are talking about Historical events there is Terrorism in France. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I deem this synthesis. Unfortunately, even before the said instances, there were the Merah attacks in Toulouse and Algerian attacks in Paris. The article can be concisely re-worked into Terrorism in France '''tAD''' (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• ::Disagree strongly with tAD and with Knowledgekid87. Terrorism in France is an omnibus. The need is for an article focuses on the threat of Islamism]], or, as Hillary Clinton prefers, jihad to France.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete for original research, and because no one is referring to it as a "Islamic Terrorism Crisis" (yet). The article on the attacks themselves should be sufficient for now, barring any more...User:The Almightey Drill

:::*"barring any more?" We have had enough and more to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

::*Right, so what we are discussing here is the name of the article. Not whether the article is on a notable topic. I prefer Islamic terrorism in France, but the idea of having an article about the jihadist attacks on France, (and on the French citizens in the jihadist movement) is valid.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to something more appropriate, like the above-suggested "Jihadist terrorism in France". It can be considered a list with additional summaries, which does not fall under WP:SYNTH; at most, it just needs to show that all listed events are Jihadist or Islamic attacks. LjL (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SYNTH. The creator of this article has combined different incidents carried out by different groups with different motives into a single "conflict", presumably to make a point.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strong KEEP changing my vote now that title has been changed from Islamic terrorism crisis in France (which did entail WP:SYNTH). The new title: Islamic terrorism attacks in France, has a definition that is as clear as war, terrorism and politics get: terrorist attacks with Islamist motivation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

::So why didn't you !vote "keep and rename/move" before? I see an alarming number of articles where people ask for deletion on the grounds that they could be improved. That's not what deletion is supposed to be about... LjL (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Change of title away from crisis changed evaluation. Crisis was WP:SYNTH: there were not sources to support notability of a "crisis". There are sources/notability in plenty about Islamic terrorists attacking France.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Keep it all seems interrelated and this article prevents clutter about each other attack on each attacks article. Also, some of the articles about the most recent attack have been talking about a 'trend' or 'spike' in related incidents, which indicates WP:PERSISTANCE/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. That said, some of this article started out as original research. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete.--85.165.230.6 (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete – Claims of significance and notability entirely consist of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS with no secondary sources, no such term as "terrorism crisis in France" in the media. The historical article Terrorism in France already exists and there's no reason for there to be a separate article with an over simplified and unencyclopedic approach of combining different unconnected incidents implemented by different groups with different motives into a single article. The content should be concisely merged into Terrorism in France. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• :Article title has been changed, your objection no longer applies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• NOTE: Major DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AFD - Please note that title/topic has been changed to: Islamic terrorism attacks in France, making the large number of WP:SYNTH objections above irrelevant. This is game-changing, but highly irregular. Not sure how to deal this development. In addition to the troubling fact that the most recent iVoters obviously voted without looking at the article, MOST of what is discussed above no longer applies to the article under its new title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

::Nope, the title may have changed but the content is still the same. It still states that there is a conflict between the French state and Jihadists which started in December 2014 as a spillover Syrian Civil War and all the the incidents it lists, including the Charlie Hebdo attack, are part of this conflict. It's still WP:SYNTH.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

::{{edit conflict}} The new name changes things a bit, but I disagree that it makes all the objections above invalid. The content remains exactly the same, and I still think it's an article that decides to link together events without much precedence or justification to do so. And it makes it even more redundant to Terrorism in France. Perhaps that could have a subsection on "Islamic terrorism" where this article could be merged. --Loeba (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

::::Terrorism in France is a list of truly motley attacks (radical left, nationalist, Islamist) . This is an article about specifically Islamic terrorism in France, a coherent and separate topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

:::If it's worth merging, though, then it shouldn't be deleted, per WP:MAD. As to the WP:SYNTH, I'm wondering, what makes it more SYNTH than the Terrorism in France article itself (assuming SYNTH applies)? LjL (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

::::Oh I'd still preference a flat-out deletion, I'm just trying to show some flexibility...I wouldn't object to the option of merging it. --Loeba (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

::There is nothing game-changing about this, and certainly nothing "highly irregular". Articles for deletion are (or, should be) judged based on what they could become, not on what they were at the time deletion was proposed. LjL (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: Disagree with "Major DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AFD", for the same reasons already stated by obi2canibe^{talk contr} and Loeba (talk) ----MarkYabloko 16:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• :Islamic terrorism in France is a coherent topic, and not a new one. Take a look, for example, at this Voice of America article from a year ago: [http://www.voanews.com/content/france-frequent-target-of-islamic-extremists-terrorrism/2590741.html].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Well that's definitely the best source presented so far. --Loeba (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.