Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers

Source: 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. This was not an easy call since both sides are looking at the same things and coming to sharply different conclusions. And FTR I find these kinds of articles an unfortunate symptom of Wikipedia's pervasive

WP:RECENTISM bias. But my job here is to interpret consensus, and I think that a compelling case has been made that there has been coverage that extended well beyond the immediate aftermath of the incident which leads me to call this a Keep. But even if I gave more credence to the deletionist interpretation of the sourcing I think at worst this would be a no-consensus which would still default to keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers

2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers (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)

After waiting several months following the incident, it can safely be determined this falls under

WP:OSE is not a keep rationale and that these events, tragic as they are, have notability guidelines. I also would be open to a redirect upon review of other editors. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

  • "Cumulative impact"? Now you are depending on other terrorist attacks to determine the notability of this one. Really? I could say more but I do not want to be accused of
    WP:BLUDGEON again for making too good of a point.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this will have a lasting impact upon Brussels, Islamic people in Belgium, police policy, Belgian laws, and so on. It has created enough movement that it deserves to be referred to and described to future students of those subjects. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CRYSTALBALL. The attack is eight months old so please explain the "impact" you mention and the so-called "movement". It received coverage for two days, that's it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom.- MrX 13:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The references included in the article show its notability, that this incident was widely reported and regarded as a "terror" attack. OtterAM (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS. This article had no sustained coverage. And being regarded as a terror attack does not contribute to notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - per lasting impact. Per sources. Refering to NOTNEWS is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay BabbaQ this is getting a little ridiculous. How is NOTNEWS now an irrelevant policy? And what was the lasting impact, may I ask? Two days of news coverage? You are simply ignoring my policy-based rationale to keep an unnotable article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a POV statement of yours. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS event? I find it very troubling all those in favor of keep completely disregard the policies stating why this article is unnotable for their own take on notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • E.M.Gregory looks like I need to quote the policy since you clearly need help understanding it: "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, 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". Again, I ask you, as I have asked others, what is the long-term impact of this event? Was there any significant policy, major riots, or something similar as a direct result of this attack? Please do not say the trial or Trump's list are examples of "long-term" impact or I can no longer take you seriously.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It met
    WP:BLUDGEON as we allow time and other editors to reach consensus.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • This is
    Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present), where this event is mentioned along with all the others.

    Looking at Google search restricted to the past few months, the only mention I found of this incident is a long list put out by the Trump administration, which alleged that the event was not covered by the media. There is no discussion of this event itself in these sources; just a response to Trump admin's claim that it was not covered. The BBC and NPR both said that the claims of "no coverage" aren't true. Politifact also rated these claims as false.

    Thus, this page should be redirected to the list page, or deleted. Kingsindian   05:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

    ]

It's of course hilarious, but completely expected, that you would add those links to try to demonstrate notability. These links aren't about the attacks (they aren't discussed at all), but about the claim that the incidents in this (arbitrary) list of 78 attacks weren't covered. The news organizations just linked to their own past coverage of the attacks (at the time they occurred) to counter Trump's claim. According to you, the totality of the "impact" of this attack is the inclusion in a list of attacks in support of a false claim by the Trump administration? We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. The situation is also hilarious in that if one accepts Trump's claim as true, then this event wasn't covered in the media, and thus should not have a WP page per
WP:GNG.

Kingsindian   12:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Wikiepdia is

not a news site, and this is an example of news reporting on Wikipeida. This is an event which took place got some usual and expected news coverage when and only when it happened this has not carried beyond the expected block of news coverage, this is just another general news event, and does not go beyond this. Sport and politics (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Editor either read the page and made a deliberate misstatement of fact here, or made a false assertion based on a page he had not read.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attributing motive and actions which are incorrect falls squarely in that category. again focus on the contributions not the contributor, if you wish to keep discussing this please feel free to do so hereSport and politics (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are allowed to strike the false information in your comment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed this editors mass deletion at 2016 Hanover stabbing, with a highly problematic edit summary. Sport and politics, we all have opinions and we all make mistakes, but you need to be more careful about verifying the assertions you make.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • New charges filed 12 June 2017 against Hicham Diop: making death threats against police holding him in custody. Story ran in Belgian, French and Senagalese news media. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is relevant for a summary of the perpetrator but is not helpful with determining the notability of this stabbing attack.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I count 17 comments from EMG and 13 comments from TGS in this AfD. Can you two give it a rest? You aren't going to convince each other, and nobody else is going to read your comments anyway. Kingsindian   04:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was unclear; the charge of making a death threat against police officers was just filed, but the threats were spoken last year, just after he attacked one set of officers, another set of officers responded and were taking him to the police station when he threatened them with death. All in the context of ISIS encouraging sympathizers to make police targets of the jihad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Music1201 talk 17:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- despite recent article changes, this is still an event of no lasting significance or societal impact. The coverage is rather routine; the subject is not encyclopedically relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage is certainly not routine; "routine" big-city knife attacks get no coverage at all. this one has had almost a year of international coverage. Because police accuse perp (who is still awaiting trail) of
    WP:GNG. Not our personal opinions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Honest question XavierItzm: Do you copy and paste your response for every "keep" vote you make? That's a very good sign that you hardly analyze the article your commenting on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't make this stuff up. [2] TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello TheGracefulSlick. Do you have an objection to my argument? I think it is quite a powerful argument. Now, if you don't have a specific objection to my argument, perhaps that's a very good sign that you hardly analyze the comment you're commenting on? Thanks in advance for your response. XavierItzm (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as of
WP:NOTE. -- Rævhuld (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
delete This is a WP:NOTNEWS event that has not shown any notable impacts. The article in question does not deem encyclopedic relevance or necessity as per wiki standards. Bebfire (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that coverage continues, including an interesting analysis published today by Christopher Dickey who places this attack within a pattern of jihadist attacks in Europe consisting of "many small incidents and thwarted ones, then suddenly one or two high-casualty attacks" [3]. This is precisely how we build Wikipedia, by having articles on incidents, events, and crimes to which we can link when buildingarticles describing broader phenomena. Note also that the assertions by Nom and others that coverage has ceased is simply untrue. And that the trial is still to come.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if your article is written in this style: [when] [who] [what] [where] as in this lede sentence On 5 October 2016, three police officers were attacked by a man wielding a machete in the Schaerbeek neighborhood of Brussels, Belgium. most likely the article falls under
    WP:NOTNEWS does not mean it an event is unimportant, only that it should not be the subject of a standalone article. There must be an article that would be a suitable for adding this information. Seraphim System (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Keep: Agreed per
WP:NOTE. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep per
WP:EVENT, the article is well sourced and was a significant event. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:31, 24 June 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.