- 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 (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:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Here we have a terrorist attack (which does not equal automatic notability) that received an expected wave of news coverage between 5 October - 7 October 2016 but had no sustained attention or WP:LASTING impact. Please keep in mind 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]
- Nom is incorrect in asserting that "wave of news coverage between 5 October - 7 October 2016 but had no sustained attention or WP:LASTING impact." and should probably
strike that assertion. Coverage has, in fact, been ongoing in both Flemish and Franco-Belgiun press, in Senegal and perhaps elsewhere. A 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:ROUTINE for any solved crime and the list does not establish a 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]
- 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]
-
-
- 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]
-
-
- E.M.Gregory and what about that coverage is not routine? Of course when a criminal is captured alive there will be a trial. Where is the WP:LASTING impact? How is this still not a 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]
-
- This is WP:NOTNEWS at its purest. Here was the state of the article before this AfD, which has been the state since last year. As you can see, it is literally just a sample of the news stories mentioning the incident, all just after the attack. Since this AfD, a few more sources about the trial have been added. Of course, every (solved) crime has a trial; that does not mean anything. I don't see any indication of any WP:LASTING significance of this event. I don't see any laws which were changed, any political upheavals or anything of that sort. There is already a main page: 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 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]
-
- 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]
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 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 Islamist terrorism? Very probably. Point is, we follow the BBC, DW, AFP, and the Belgian and Senegalese press. When they deem it notable by continuing to covering it, that's what passes 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]
-
- 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. There are always exceptions - usually events that we can expect to have a lasting and significant impact. Some things will likely be written about in books and academic papers like the Congressional Baseball shooting or the Beltway Sniper. If you ask yourself "Do I think that in the future an entire book could be written about this event, or that this event will have a lasting influence" and the answer is "Yes" then it may fall under the WP:NOTNEWS exceptions. 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:NOTE and 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.