Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Ramadan attacks

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 keep. While on a simple vote count this could be no consensus and there are many weak arguments on both sides, there is a clear swing in opinion as the discussion continued (including both the nominator and one delete supporter changing their opinions). This tracked an improvement and expansion of the article, which is significantly different to what the early comments was based on. As such I judge that there is now a consensus for keeping the current article.

There is strong support for the article title being moved but no clear consensus on the target to be moved to. There is an open move request on the article talk page and I encourage those who commented here to contribute to that discussion and reach consensus there. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Ramadan attacks

[edit]
2015 Ramadan attacks (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)

This article takes three separate incidents which are separately covered (1, 2, 3) and makes two substantial and unproven assumptions:

  1. They are linked
  2. They were instigated by a particular message from an ISIS leader

The link between these events may yet be proven but it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to be presenting it as fact at this stage. The article's existence depends on that link, and even the title itself assumes it, so it should be deleted or at least taken out of article space. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this absolutely must be kept, it should be moved to 26 June 2015 attacks to limit POV assertions about Ramadan, and PRIMARY assertions from terrorists should be replaced with SECONDARY sources that analyse their meaning. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Politico is neutral? In that case all non-nato sources are neutral against an agenda. This is clearly moving into a neocon agenda with overwhelming opposition.120.62.20.8 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that Politico has been declared a non-RS or that it is something along the lines of Breitbart in terms of sketchiness. It's not an opinion piece, but they are quoting the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I also don't know what you mean by neocon agenda - I'm the last person in the world who is a "neocon." There should be no agenda here - it either meets GNG as an event or it doesn't, and it does: these separate events have gained significant, united coverage under the name Bloody Friday. It sounds like you have your own agenda, 120. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • source reliability for an assertion in an article title should be treated as higher than for the article body - "Ramadan" is an entire month, and declaring it related to Ramadan should require conclusive evidence, not POV assertions by various outlets. WP:NEO calls for concern around new words (asking for strong evidence of secondary usage) - this should similarly apply to the phrase "Bloody friday" - it's used by some media, but not all, I'd argue source reliability is not high enough to preference POV assertions in titles above, say, "26 June 2015 attacks" (boring, but descriptive). -- Aronzak (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should not have been called "Ramadan attacks," but it has been referred to as "Bloody Friday" repeatedly by RS. "The strong of attacks killed at least 65 people in total on a dark day that is now being referred to as “bloody Friday”."[1], [2], [3] Keep in mind, this only happened yesterday. I don't see why Politico is unreliable either, but even so they were not speculating but reporting what an official stated. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Independent and some source reprint an Independent article? I can hardly call it "independent" and don't see how reliable it is. George Ho (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didn't notice the albawaba was a reprint, sorry. But I fail to see why The Independent is not a RS. It's certainly not part of any "neocon agenda." It's already being called "Bloody Friday" in multiple sources, and again, it's barely been a day. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For the attacks, ISIS claimed responsibility or the perpetrator was an ISIS sympathizer. However, we may need to remove references to the Somalian attack, since that is linked to al-Shabab instead. --Article editor (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Even if the attacks are not directly related, it is notable that three or more terrorist attacks were carrried out within a few hours of each other one three separate continents each receiving worldwide media attention. However, I say we rename it to the date June 26 attacks - or Bloody Friday, Fatal or whatever if that becomes a widely used term for the collective attacks (kinda how "Arab Spring" replaced 2010-2011 MENA protests)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Bloody Friday (2015) - There is media coverage by RS connecting these events and claims of ISIL ties to all of them (except the Leego attack which should be removed). Add 2015 to the end due to previous events called Bloody Friday. Hello32020 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no proof the attacks are linked and the title is suggesting they are is misleading. They might have been inspired by the same source but that does not suggest they were planned or coordinated as one event. Keeping the events as separate entries would suffice as they are noteworthy events in themselves and combining them would diminish that. If the article is to be kept, it needs a rewrite and major clean up to conform to wikipedia standards. smrgeog (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Bloody Friday (2015) multiple media sources naming the day and referring to the attacks together is justification to keep, regardless of whether they were coordinated (beyond a leader exhorting mujahideen everywhere to attack). Yes, Islamist attacks occur frequently around the world, but the number of attacks, and number of casualties, is unusually high for one day. 3 of the 5 have already been claimed by Daesh, and the one in France likely is associated with it as well. Uncertain whether to include Leego - Al Shabaab has pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda, competitive to Daesh, but at the same time it is consistent for them to attack during Ramadan as well. Rationaledit (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Suyogtalk to me! 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is significantly different from how it was when I nominated it. User:Wikimandia, in particular, has done much good work in changing its focus so that it is now very reasonably an article that examines world reaction to the near-simultaneous incidents. It is not surprising to me that the above opinions change from almost exclusively 'delete' to almost exclusively 'keep' at around the same time. I guess I cannot withdraw the nomination and close this because of the number of early 'delete' !votes but I am certainly happy to change my own to keep and rename to 26 June 2015 terrorist attacks or similar. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RichardOSmith for your unbiased reassessment of the article! I think the "Ramadan attacks" title is POV and may have influenced some early delete votes. I'm still leaning toward Bloody Friday (2015) rather than the 26 June date; some of the reports have included Thursday's massacre at Kobani under the "Bloody Friday/Black Friday" label with the reasoning that Friday began with the bloody/black news of the Kobani horror. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Having said that, perhaps if the scope of the article were limited to the attacks in France, Tunisia, and Kuwait, it would feel more focused and justifiable. What troubles me about the article as it currently stands, aside from obvious concerns about OR, is the inclusion of the recent fighting in Kobani, which has been going on for days and which began before these attacks, and of the Battle of Leego, which doesn't involve ISIS and is a part of a conflict that's been going on for years. By attempting to include all of these attacks under the banner of the "Ramadan attacks" or "Bloody Friday", we're overlooking the difference between Islamic terrorism and Islamic militancy, which I think are two different things (but maybe that's just my POV). As I said above, the French attack and the attack on Leego, besides their vast difference in scale, are also very different in type. If we were to focus the article exclusively on France, Tunisia, and Kuwait, I think a persuasive case could be made for the attacks as representing the range and the scope of ISIS's terrorism. By bringing in pitched battles in civil wars, we dilute the subject. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2015 (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/2015_Ramadan_attacks&oldid=1142162277"