Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2017 Brussels 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 no consensus. I would recommend somebody creates an RfC on the notability of terrorist incidents, as there seem to be quite a few turning up to AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017 Brussels attack[edit]

August 2017 Brussels 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)

This is a news item, and is not notable of inclusion of being on Wikipeida. Wikipeida appears to have a problem with recentism when it comes to articles involving incidents of this nature. There appears to be a jump to create articles, and to attribute labels to incidents, long before any of is has been established. The threshold for WP:Notability is not met here. There needs to be a halt to all these kinds of news articles, appearing as if they are somehow instantly notable. This is not notable, this is simply a news story.

There will be claims throughout the discussion of this incident, that this being part of the wider x or y or Z. This is not good enough to simply be claimed it must be shown by independent and reliable third party sources, demonstrating more than routine coverage. Simply shouting words does not make someone an extremist. Simply being a member of a religion and a criminal does not make someone a religious extremist. Simply attacking soldiers does not make an incident terrorism. Stating those things equal Radical Islamic Terrorism, is Original Research and is synthesis both of which are not allowed on Wikpedia. This article has a problem, it biggest problem is that it was created in the first place, as this is just routine coverage of a crime. Until further notability is established this has no place on Wikiepida. Sport and politics (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Saying the mayor of Venice said snipers will shoot those who shout "Allahu Akbar" with-in 4 paces ([1]) the day before would be OR (well - not quite - it has been mentioned in joint coverage of the two). However - this specific event generated international coverage which continues - coverage runs through the event until yesterday (the 29th - when the Belgian General commanding the ground forces said this attack will influence tactics). Decisions regarding notability should be based on coverage, particularly in a WP:RAPID event - and not on what editors think should or should not be notable.Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we're neglecting NOTNEWS at their own peril, and so editors are welcome to write up every little thing that suits their fancy, inviting completely undue coverage of the world. I will lend my voice to the nominator's, crying out in the desert. Delete: we're not the news, this is not big news, no lasting consequences, etc. Yes, all such things are world events, for a day and a half. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Terrorist attack claimed by ISIS via the ISIS-mouthpiece Amaq News Agency regarded by security experts as accurate in identifying which attacks are carried out by its own devotees. Belgian authorities calling it terrorism. More to the point for our purposes, coverage has been worldwide, possibly because there is nothing "routine" about a dedicated follower of the Islamic State ideology of violent jihad, carrying a Quran and shouting Allahu Akbr attacking soldiers patrolling the Grand Place, the heart of Brussels. NOTNEWS is a Red herring. Note - I forgot to add that this article meets WP:NCRIME, and that it is entirely usual to create articles about breaking news crime stories that are receiving international news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017, Incident is too small for an article. There were two soldiers that suffered (light) injuries in a stabbing attack. I would understand the significance for an article if it was a bomb attack with two injuries. Bombings are less common in Europe and need more planning and preparation. But since this was a low-casualty stabbing attack with only two victims I suggest this article to be merged.JBergsma1 (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as clearly passes WP:NEVENTS with widespread coverage for this event. Greenbörg (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it lives up to the WP:GNG general notability guideline. Since this attack was claimed by ISIS, it is thus an event of international scope. It has enough coverage in sources to merit a standalone article. Brief mentions could be added to relevant list articles. AadaamS (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominator complains about Radical Islamic Terrorism. This is nowhere in the article itself.
    The nominator complains about extremism. This is nowhere in the article itself.
    The nominator complains about WP:OR. If there were an issue with WP:OR, AfD would not be the correct venue to manage it.
    In sum, there appears to something quite strange about the nomination itself.
    In any event, article sources meet WP:SIGCOV and all other usual requirements, so it should be kept. XavierItzm (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Firstly I would note that the existence of an article in another language Wikipedia is utterly irrelevant. And then this is clearly a news report rather than an encyclopedia article. Before we can write an encyclopedia article we need secondary sources, rather than just news reports, which by any definition outside Wikipedia are primary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear IP, Like ALL articles on recent events, this one one is sourced to WP:RS news media. Books and academic articles may well follow, but are they not required.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear E.M., like most articles on recent events this is a news report rather than an encyclopedia article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
On the flip side in my opinion this clearly fails WP:BREAKING. Sport and politics (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which says don't rush to create AND don't rush to delete (besides stipulating the currentevent tag). This article has on-going high-profile coverage (as of the nom - which I added after I saw the nom). There's no harm in it lingering here - this is a clear case of WP:WAIT - in 3-6 months it'll be much easier to assert significance or non-significance. When a current event is clearly non-significant it is easy to delete - otherwise, letting it wait a while makes supporting a D much easier (as instead of arguing whether coverage will continue - you simply see a lack of coverage).Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly a failure here as the article is not meeting notability, it is all speculatio. I suggest that the 'high-profile' coverage is made clear, as that is highly subjective as a claim. Sport and politics (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The attack itself (day of, next day, day2) - was an international news item (covered by a huge number of world-class sources, as well as filtering down to local news outside of Belgium). General Thuys statments were picked up by Reuters and Euronews yesterday.[1][2] So we have coverage by world-class sources from the 25th to the 29th. The 30th is still young at this point. So we're left at crystall-balling at the level of coverage going forward, as at present - we have coverage (including a change in Belgium's military tactics, which would be another claim of a significance beyond coverage).Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OtherStuffExists, each article must meet the inclusion criteria independently, and WP:EVENTCRIT which specifically mentions violent crimes are of interest to news media but not always Wikipedia. Artilces historic or long-term importance, both of which are not established here. Sport and politics (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on. Saying NOTNEWS is a red herring is the real red herring, and larding this with detail is salacious. The very detail you cite is in fact completely routine. We all know you have a fondness for writing up such events and tend to look at only one side of a conflict. I just noticed Louvre machete attack, where you cleverly present events that happened before the attack in an "Aftermath" section, allowing you to argue (again) that the event was notable because...well, because of SYNTH. And that event wasn't much different from this one, so I don't see how you can claim "not routine"--but hey, to each his own. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The moment you stop this rhetorical bending, this twisting of other people's words, you will find that the world is a much nicer place than you thought. We're not in debate society anymore; you don't score points by adding little zingers. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." This is what WP:NOTNEWS states. And is a longstanding practice on WP to create articles on major events as they happen: Hurricane Harvey as it hits Houston; Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville; and this terrorist attack in Brussels.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This event is neither of those events, which are in and of themselves notable events. This is a routine news reporting of an event which occurred. This does not come close in anyway to the two articles cited, which have significant and historic impact and are inherently notable. This is none of those things. Sport and politics (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of the four articles state on the top of their talk pages they have been nominated for deletion with the result being keep. The other two do not indicate ever having been nominated for deletion, please show if they other two have been nominated for deletion. I suggest there is a stopping of grasping at straws, and a realisation that notability for individual articles must be established. Not everything in the media is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. This is one of those things which at the moment is no where near notable enough and does not warrant inclusion on wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 04:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that a page on this attack exists on Wikipedia in French.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2017 (
  • Note that I reponded to this point but another editor moved my response above. The flow of this discussion has been broken by an unnecessary "discussion" section being added (this whole discussion is obviously a discussion), and too many people have responded for me to be able to fix that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes that's a rather pointless section break, just as you say. I've changed the source code so that it no longer breaks up the Afd discussion when it appears on deletion sorting pages. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It would clearly passes WP:NEVENTS sction with widespread coverage, national and international news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D8jang (talk • contribs) 04:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 03:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough to deserve its own page. Content could possibly be merged onto a page on the broader topic, if one exists. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Copy-paste was used to nominate both Buckingham Palace and this article within minutes of e.a. other. Perhaps the same WP:POINTy issues raised there of late should be considered here? XavierItzm (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with XavierItzm on this point. As detailed by several editors towards the end of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Buckingham Palace incident discussion, Nom has been WP:DISRUPTING the project by making a large number of WP:POINTy nominations. They close as keep after wasting a great deal of editorial time, although if the purpose is to make WP a BATTLEGROUND and discourage editors from participating, it may succeed in accomplishing that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Nom's rationale for deleting was a false assertion that Islamist terrorism is being asserted groundlessly here, when, in fact, it is well-sourced. Revisiting, I continue to support keeping.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was that really their only assertion or are you just cherry picking? What about other editors who don't have your view? Are they all wrong too for following policy?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: we're not the news, this is not big news, no lasting consequences, etc. Yes, all such things are world events, for a day and a half per Drmies, not the smallest sign of lasting significance or coverage in depth, half of the text is about other events with no clear connection to this one.Pincrete (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC) ..... ps I think we have several mentions of the accused's man's "middle-eastern theological connections", but no mention of what happened to him (I believe he was shot dead). Pincrete (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it is an abuse of the AfD process to try to use it to amend perceived notions of weakness in the article. Under your rationale that one of the grounds for deletion is «no mention of what happened to him», then please follow WP:BEFORE. BTW, the article clearly records the death of the attacker, and in fact the very first WP:RS cited in the article (i.e., citation 1) is: "Belgian soldiers shoot dead knife attacker in Brussels."[3]. XavierItzm (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My delete rationale is clearly stated, that there is no significance, consequence or in-depth coverage of this event, none is even claimed beyond "15 minutes of fame" and the implication that any terrorist event is inherently worthy of its own article. A para in a list article would adequately cover everything which is not blatant WP:OR here. Do you understand 'ps'? Since the 'ps' is clearly not part of my delete rationale, how can its content be an abuse of anything?
One should not need to look inside a ref to learn a basic fact of an event such as a death, but those who are so quick to impugn the motives of others here who question the value of this article, betray their own PoV by failing to mention the death - while simultaneously ensuring that "ethnic and theological connections" are stated repeatedly. ..... pps Why would anyone shoot a dead knife attacker? Sounds a bit overkill to me! Perhaps that's why we don't rely on headlines hidden away inside refs to do our work for us! Pincrete (talk) 16:27, 21 September 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.
  1. ^ New Tactics to Protect Soldiers on Belgian Streets, Euro News, 29 Aug 2017
  2. ^ 'Uniforms a target' Belgian General says after Brussels stabbing, Reuters, 29 August 2017
  3. ^ "Belgian soldiers shoot dead knife attacker in Brussels". Reuters. Retrieved 26 August 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/August_2017_Brussels_attack&oldid=1137585109"