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

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.

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

• Nom is incorrect in asserting that "wave of news coverage between 5 October - 7 October 2016 but had no sustained attention or
  WP:BEFORE search would have turned this ongoing coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Readers, please do not be fooled by this statement. The "ongoing" coverage he is referring to is the trial and a list of dozens of terrorist attacks that were "under-reported". The trial is
  WP:LASTING impact. Despite asking several times, Gregory simply ignores my requests for the long-term impact of this attack. Most likely, because there isn't any, thusly the article should be deleted or redirected.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• [[WP:NCRIME]S are deemed notable largely on the basis of being "high-profile criminal acts," as evidenced by national and international news coverage. As a terrorist attack it has a cumulative impact as part of a pattern of of attacks in Category:Islamic terrorism in Belgium that shapes policy in Belgium and Europe. Also note that few knifing get into the newspaper at all, certainly not national and international coverage. This one is WP notable because it has had such coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 13 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
  ]

• It is absolutely false that coverage was limited to two days! There has been continuous coverage and it continues as as recently as June 2017. XavierItzm (talk) 05:51, 20 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
  ]

• Slick, You appear to misunderstand. The thing to do when an article on a significant incident needs better sourcing is to tag for "remimprove" or to source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 11 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]

• BabbaQ care to answer the questions I brought up? Or are they somehow "POV" too?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note that there has, in fact, been ongoing coverage in the Belgian press as this case moves towards trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 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
  ]

• Note, however, that article met
  WP:GEOSCOPE when it was nominated, and that meeting GEOSCOPE is not routine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:35, 12 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
  ]

• I guess that is your way of saying "I cannot determine the long term impact but I'll throw in
  WP:BLUDGEON because he is asking too many legitimate questions for my liking". Thanks, anyways.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:54, 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

  ]

• In other words, months after this attack occurred, Trump's statement brought it back to international attention causing CNN, NPR, BBC, NYTimes, and several other leading international media to revisit this story. .E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:56, 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

]

• Certainly the wave of coverage in February 2017 supports notability. Trump's assertion was that this and other terrorist attacks had been under-reported by the media. The BBC, NPR, CNN, The Guardian, the BBC and many other major media rushed to demonstrate how thoroughly they had covered this attack, not only proving that Trump had made a false assertion, but also proving that this attack did in fact receive major international coverage when it occurred. To which we can add the examples of WIDESPREAD, LASTING coverage sparked by Trump. All of this in addition to ongoing national coverage in Belgium.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikiepdia is

• False assertion by editor who appears not to have looked at the sourcing now on the page. (an editor who has just carried oft a series of mass deletions at
  Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redact: Adding to my comment, Sport and Politics wrote that this attack "got some usual and expected news coverage when and only when it happened" repeating Nom's assertion and demonstrating that Sport and Politics had not looked at the sources on the page where
  WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is shown.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - Strong personal comments which are unfounded, comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Sport and politics (talk) 12:45, 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]

• WP:DIVERSE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Today's headlines, My French being what it is, I would appreciate it if a fluent reader would look at this article in today's La Capitale, 12 Juin 2017 , Schaerbeek: deux policiers citent directement Hicham Diop devant le tribunal, [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 12 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]

• Demonstrates the
  WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Continued coverage of what? This additional charge is trivial at best and completely unrelated to the stabbing, other than the fact the same perp committed the act. And, worse still, it neglects the more important matter,
  WP:LASTING impact. Your "cumulative impact" argument does not fulfill any point of that policy I'm (or anyone else is) aware of and incorrectly asserts that these types of events do not need independent notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:35, 15 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]

• 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
  ]

• Keep: Is the Wikipedia running out of server space? No. This event has been widely covered by WP:RS worldwide and content continues to be added. There is no sound rationale for deletion, and if this were deleted for reasons of being considered "minor" (in the eyes of the deleter), then about 1/2 of the Wikipedia, with articles with less sources and less edits, would have to be deleted too, for consistency. As the latter is unlikely to happen, the deletion of this page and not of the others would show clear bias/censorship by the deleters. XavierItzm (talk) 05:33, 20 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]

• WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:15, 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 seems like a minor incident compared to more major attacks.173.62.245.68 (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC) — 173.62.245.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• delete Seems to fall under
  WP:ROUTINE. Might be important in a French or Flemish version of Wilipedia, but not English. That said, a similar article, 2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers should be considered for deletion as well.63.160.158.184 (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)— 63.160.158.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 to closing editor that there is a sockpuppet investigation on the 3 editors just above Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheGracefulSlick. The investigation is open, I may be incorrect, but I thought I should mention it here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:51, 23 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

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.