Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcazar Library arson attack

Alcazar Library arson attack

[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]

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]
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]

Delete - Per nom. and pretty much everyone above, the page as it is is clearly not firt 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]