Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Hurghada 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 keep. There is no consensus to delete the article. There is significant coverage from third-party sources and the attack has been repeatedly referenced by important figures long after the fact--establishing notability. Several commentators here have pointed out that a redirect is clumsy. Consensus as I read it is to keep the article. Malinaccier (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Hurghada attack[edit]

2016 Hurghada attack (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)

Another WP:NOTNEWS incident that received a few days of coverage and faded away with no indications of societal impact. Fails WP:GEOSCOPE and falls under WP:ROUTINE media attention as well. Please do not confuse coverage with the 2017 Hurghada attack or passing mentions of this unnotable incident in reports about the 2017 attack as "continued coverage". I would also support a merge to a list like...I don't know this. Gregory has supplied a better redirect option: Terrorism in Egypt.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS - If anyone wants to claim this has WP:DIVERSE coverage -- please actually read the part where it says sources shouldn't just mirror each other. I also recommend WP:PRIMARYNEWS which does not consider news reports as secondary sources since they do not have in-depth analysis of the event. I have covered all the bases here; editors I urge you all to do the same. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slick, Note that "mirror" does not apply to reported stories, such as those the 2017 stories in CNN, the NYTimes, that have the byline of a journalist; these are reported stories. "mirror" applies to wire service stories that are picked up by multiple newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag for sourcing And Note that this attack did come back into the new cycle at the time of the 2017 Hurghada attack. It may make sense to tag for better sourcing, particularly for sourcing in German, Swedish and Arabic. In fact, it is my habit when I come upon a brief but plausible article that I lack the time, expertise, or inclination to improve, to tag REIMPROVE, for NOTABILITY, and/or for other specific problems. Also, given the growing problem with Terrorism in Egypt, this attack is part of an important picture that we lose some of by deleting an article that could be improved. I suggest that rushing articles with plausible claims to NOTABILITY to deletion - rather than tagging them for improvement, or, you know, making a good faith effort to improve them - is bad for the project. I have a high regard for WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oi, I knew you would falsely claim it is "back in the news cycle" because of the latest, completely unrelated attack. I appreciate how you are insinuating I do not have the expertise to improve a "plausible article". Only problem is this isn't a "plausible article" and I made sure of that. I checked the sourcing available, asked the opinion of another editor, reviewed the souring again, and read the related policies before making this decision.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And, just to make it clear, do you actually consider AfDing a news-type article that has been in mainspace for over a year as "rushing"? Honestly?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er... I had seen that this attack was in the papers again recently, because I stumbled upon the 2017 Hurghada attack while scanning the news; stories about the 2017 attack referenced this attack. I took material I found while building a basic article on the 2017 Hurghada attack and used it to make a very small improvement to Tourism in Egypt, an ADVERT badly in need of editing. I far prefer to spend my limited editing time on that sort of useful contribution to the project. Somewhere along the way I saw Terrorism in Egypt, (which is a potential redirect target.) My goal here is WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Terrorism_in_Egypt#Red_Sea_resort_attacks; the para already present in the suggested target sufficiently covers the subject. It's insufficiently notable for a stand-alone, hence the redirect suggestion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect, there is certainly enough coverage to make it notable, and it is one of the 78 attacks listed by Trump as having not had coverage. If Trump is right, that would make it notable, if he is wrong then it is Wiki-notable! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Well that is a non sequitur. If Trump is right then there is a lack of coverage; if he is wrong, you need sources beyond a regular news cycle to show otherwise. I've also seen this list used as a part of several failed rationales because, as you describe it, it is a list of 78 attacks briefly mentioning this one incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to assertions made by Nom, this terrorist attack on a beach resort has now had 3 rounds of international coverage 1.) when it occurred, 2.) when Donald Trump asserted that it had been neglected by the news media, and 3.) when the same resort was hit by the 2017 Hurghada attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, that is a total misrepresentation of the sources. Here is what the sources actually are: 1) a brief news cycle 2) A Trump list that passively mentions the attack 3) A completely separate attack that occurred a year, receiving coverage which briefly mentions the existence of the earlier attack. No in-depth coverage and no post-analysis. I'm all for preserving notable information but I'm against deceiving editors by falsely claiming there has been continued coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is Al Jazeera's mention of the 2016 attack in the 2017 attack article "A similar attack took place in Hurghada in January 2016 when two attackers armed with a gun, a knife and a suicide belt landed on the beach of a hotel, wounding two foreign tourists, according to security sources." [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, a whole sentence stating the existence of the 2016 attack happening in the same location? Try reading WP:INDEPTH, particularly this: "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing". That article is focused on the 2017 incident. You know what a passing mention is and why it does not count toward significant coverage; I shouldn't have to explain this to you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, of course, that notability under WP:NCRIME, " "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", has already been established by coverage at the time of the attack that meets WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE. This little sub-discussion is about whether WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:LASTING have also been met. But Note that all 5 of these indici of notability be met, let alone that each of them be met to the satisfaction of any individual editor or group of editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be deleted because it has no WP:lasting impact and no significant coverage except contemporary news reports. The Donald Trump mention does not count: as many news articles have emphasized, the list was totally arbitrary and wrong. The events on the list either already had significant coverage (which makes their inclusion in the list nonsensical), or some items on the list were so obscure (some involved no injuries or deaths) that nobody covered them.

    However irritating these kinds of articles are, they keep getting "kept" or "no consensus", and I don't see any real harm in them existing, so I don't bother !voting anymore. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sentence handed down in December 2016, I have now expanded article to include verdict, including the life sentence in abstentia given to the Egyptian-born ISIS operative who recruited and incited the 2 attackers. Slick, do you want to reconsider this Nomination?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize that every single crime that occurs in a country with at least a marginal court system will have a trial, right? The fact that news agencies are simply doing their job mentioning the outcome is not significant, it's routine.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. This is more than a "crime". It's a terrorist attack. What I think, editor E.M.Gregory is pointing out here is that he's trying to improve the article. What is the difference between the church bombing news articles and these articles on terrorist knife attacks? Why delete this one but not those? the eloquent peasant (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until we have a suitable better article to redirect it to (see talk page) Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt temporarily ... will work with TGS to to create a better page to redirect it to, (for example an article like Terrorism Directed at Egyptian Tourism Industry - Tourists and Monuments) those !@%$#%@ would blow up the pyramids. Imagine being an Egyptian and having to worry each day that your country's tourism will nosedive because some !@%$#%@ is hell-bent on destroying your nation? Anyway, for now Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt is all we got. Please see talk page. (Previous comment: is a slippery slope Firstly, why is 'this article irritating'? Again, I say Keep because Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt would lead to a slippery slope (<--that's a funny phrase) of deleting other similar articles that I would never want to see merged. Exhibit A: this Palm Sunday Church Bombing, at a church in Egypt. I would never want to see this article deleted and it's just like the 2017 Attack in Hurghada. What's the difference? The public outcry? The reactions? So I don't know much about the details you guys are all presenting (even though my English comprehension is very good).. um.. I guess what I'm trying to say is that. Terrorism in Egypt, an ongoing problem since Sadat was murdered, Muslim Brotherhood came into power, then was removed from power, Sinai killings are happening almost daily, other countries have fallen into civil war because of of it-- sorry.. Well. Would we ever delete the other church bombing article, the Botsoseya Church bombing article? Again I don't understand too much about wiki guidelines, rules, policies, etc. I do notice that more people spent time working on the church bombing articles than on the tourist beach attacks, maybe the article could be named "Hurgada attacks" cause another one just happened two weeks ago - http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/14/middleeast/egypt-hurghada-beach-attack/index.html but should articles that address individual instances of terrorism be kept or deleted? Each instance happens once and is talked about once (Trump talking about it, to me, doesn't constitute a second news cycle). The bigger question is how big does an event have to be to deserve it's own article? It's repercussions? I don't know. KEEP (one of my very first votes on Wikipedia) the eloquent peasant (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also this does have lasting societal impact - on Egyptian society, and Tourism in Egypt and tourists who had considered going to Egypt. http://af.reuters.com/article/africaTech/idAFKBN1AC16J-OZATP the eloquent peasant (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • LevelC this is truly one of the better votes I have seen in awhile, even from editors who come to these discussions regularly. I can assure you the Sunday Church bombing would never be considered for deletion, nor anything similar. All of the essential information from this 2016 incident would be merged to terrorism in Egypt so nothing important is actually being lost. Wouldn't you agree Wikipedia is not a news agency and should focus on notability? By the way, the source you provided is about the 2017 incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the eloquent peasant did read the 2017 Reuters source he provided. 1/5 of this source is about the 2016 attack. It reads: "The incident was the first significant attack on foreign visitors since a similar assault on the same resort more than a year ago, and came as Egypt struggles to revive a tourism industry hurt by security threats and years of political upheaval."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oi, WP:BLUDGEON, bludgeon, bludgeon. But thank you for literally asserting the fact it was referring to the mainly to the 2017 incident. That brief paragraph does not connect the struggles to revive tourism directly to the 2016 attack at all; it simply mentions that another attack in the same location occurred a year ago.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGracefulSlick: This news article from The Independent does connect the 2016 Knife Attack to the "struggles to revive tourism". Regards, the eloquent peasant (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the eloquent peasant a brief mention in an article does not constitute as significant post-analysis nor does it weigh how much this incident affected tourism. It merely notes it was tragic but tragedy does not equal notability on Wikipedia. Notice how the writer called the plane crash "high-profile"? That is the kind of article that deserves a standalone page. That incident is covered significantly for its impact -- not just bundled like in the Independent article you found; this 2016 attack has not been. Exactly why it needs to be redirected to terror in Egypt. Unfortunately, it appears XavierItzm's inaccurate and policy-less vote swayed you away from your previous, more thoughtful, decision.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive my stupidity but what does Oi, bludgeon, bludgeon mean (because you're both doing it)? There are a lot of news articles that talk about how terrorism affects tourism in Egypt. So whatever, the problem is - it's that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Ok. I agree with that. But how do we decide an Event has societal impact... We'd need some time to see // and data analysis to see how this event affected Tourism in Egypt? Keep do not redirect. Have a nice day everyone. Good-bye. I'm hungry. It's supa time. (note to self- so that's what it's like 'participating in a discussion!) the eloquent peasant (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGracefulSlick: -- The graceful slick, the eloquent peasant -?? Did you notice the similarities? hm? Thanks for the compliment, before. I think there's no right or wrong answer here. I'm pondering this "events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article". Maybe it wasn't this knife attack that had (or will have) a demonstrable long-term effect on Egyptian Tourism. Maybe it was the revolution. 90 million people + 1 million more every six months- that's a big group of people. But that 1 event? Wikipedia is not a newspaper! I worked at a newspaper. Oh. No wonder I don't get involved in discussions. It's difficult. the eloquent peasant (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unchanged (still "Redirect") even in light of HEYMAN. For example, the "Impact" section consists of one sentence:
  • "Due to this and other attacks, 2016 was a "tough year" for the tourism industry in Egypt.[14]"
This is already covered within the larger article Terrorism_in_Egypt#Red_Sea_resort_attacks. Insufficient lasting societal impact as a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Guys, we have WP:RS (already included on the entry) citing this attack as one of the reasons why tourists in Egypt went from 15 million to 5 million. In a major country which largely depends on tourism. If people are going to consider events such as this as insignificant... well, then maybe about 1/2 of the Wikipedia should be deleted because it's hard to understand what events could possibly be more significant than events such as this. Not to mention that this was an ISIS attack by a (now convicted) operative of the Islamic State, Ahmad Abdel Salam Mansour. Again, if individual ISIS attacks were to all of the sudden be considered moot and not worthy of Wikipedia, then there is a very long list of other ISIS knife attacks to be deleted! It seems to me deleting this one only would be a mark of bias. XavierItzm (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous puffery: Guys, we have WP:RS (already included on the entry) citing this attack as one of the reasons why tourists in Egypt went from 15 million to 5 million. The quoted source actually says: Before the 2011 uprising, nearly 15 million tourists visited Egypt a year. In 2016, the number totalled just 5.3 million, according to chairman of Egypt's Tourism Authority, Hicham al-Demairi.

The sentence in the article is blatant WP:OR as well: the Independent article does not say that 2016 was a "tough year" because of this attack. Indeed, the news article says: Although the country has been troubled, most of the popular tourist spots have remained largely undisturbed and are not listed as off-limits by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Indeed, the same newspaper actually published an article (linked in the source listed) in August 2016 by their travel correspondent, actually recommending Hurghada.

Please do not puff up the importance of the terrorist attack. If the attack was important, one can defend it at AfD without making up stuff. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Independent" article says " In January 2016 a knife attack at the Bella Vista hotel in Hurghada injured three foreign visitors. Just this Easter, two bombs went off on Palm Sunday, killing 45 Coptic Christians. Incidents like these are both tragic on an individual and community level, and devastating on a national one,..." Egypt, which is a country that depends on tourism saw tourism nosedive during the revolution. Once the country's government began to stabilize and tourism began picking up, terrorists began targeting tourism sites. (and it didn't stop and it continues and I think it's very important. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/11/world/middleeast/10egyptattacks_listy.htmlthe eloquent peasant (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this AFD is part of a recent series of terrorism-related AFDs in which Nom attempts to change the usual outcome of articles about terrorist attacks. For at least several years, terrorist attacks have been judged notable underWP:NCRIME, when they meet WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE, and if borught to AFD a year or so later, kept if there has been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING. Here, on her talk page, GSlick, persuades a fellow editor that this is the usual outcome [3]. Obviously, Slick and I have differ. But editors coming to this page should know that this is part of a campaign to shift the usual outcome in a category of topics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • False premise Editors arguing that merging this article to Terrorism in Egypt or to a list are basing their argument on a false premise, an unrealistic assertion that the information will thereby be WP:PRESERVED. There is no guarantee that merged information will continue to be kept in an article, rather, it can be changed or removed at any time. It is common for lists and articles to be tightened by removing mention of relevant but non-bluelinked incidents as a list or topic grows. redirecting is not a certain means to PRESERVE useful information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M. Gregory if you are going to continue to WP:BLUDGEON numerous AfDs, I will report you to ANI. Seriously, this is ridiculous and it disrupts any attempt of having a fruitful discussion. A "campaign" to shift the usual outcome? If the usual outcome neglects policy like you do, than I'd happily be a part of that change.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Level C:. You may be unaware that it is verboten to return and change a comment on a talk page without marking the material as new. (i refer to yuredit above " Imagine being an Egyptian and having to worry each day that your country's tourism will nosedive because some !@%$#%@ is hell-bent on destroying your nation? Anyway, for now Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt is all we got. Please see talk page. (Previous comment: is a slippery slope)"[4]. You may want to review the rules on this. But to respond, what you say is true, tourism has fallen in Paris and in Israel after terrorist attacks. It also falls after other types of crime waves, epidemics, changes of government, and, well, for lots of reasons. It is not an argument for redirecting an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I know (sigh). I always do that and I know I'm not supposed to. I've been doing it for years on internet sites. I won't do it anymore. Peace the eloquent peasant (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - covered in numerous reliable sources, including TV coverage by CNN. I know it's a chicken and egg argument, but every post-2010 attack in Terrorism in Egypt has its own article. And there's too much detail to add everything - attack, arrest, trial - to that article without it eventually becoming too cumbersome. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:19, 1 August 2017 (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/2016_Hurghada_attack&oldid=1068996751"