Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Brussels attack

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. Or at least no consensus, depending how one assesses the arguments, but clearly no consensus to delete. Sandstein 11:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017 Brussels attack

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not news and is not a directory for every conceivable piece of information possible. I'll elaborate further:

The fact the same story was repeated for a few days in late June will certainly be applied by !voters here. However, as our guideline for events states: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". So now we know, based on policy, crimes can be considered as "routine kinds of news events" and even wide news reports are not enough alone.

Following along, there is no indication of "enduring significance". Not only is it required here, it is necessary for WP:LASTING and a wide impact for WP:GEOSCOPE. Procedures following the incident were immediate, routine, and short-lived. No major damage, political ramifications, societal impact, anything of enduring significance came from this. Of course, this had a pontential to be devasting and perhaps then notable but we do not credit potential notability.

The incident lacks in-depth coverage, instead it relies on narrative reports. Please do not present some news report that briefly mentions this in one sentence as a part of a "trend" because "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing". And, really, you would only be providing proof that the trend, not the incident, is notable.

Editors can propose a merge if they wish but I do not advocate for it. Such an article, in this state, isn't fitting to merge. The "background" just mentions actual notable (but unrelated) attacks, and too much trivia, as well as speculative content is included but little substance for an encyclopedic article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article title should be moved to something like 2017 Brussels Central Station failed bombing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Bombing the Brussels Central Station, a major rail station (plus, in this case, a Victor Horta design) is hardly ROUTINE, as evidenced by the fact that on the other side of the world, the Washington Post ran 2 reported stories on this incident, the New York Times ran 2 and the Wall Street Journal ran 3 stories - none wire service, all reported. In each of these newspapers, the 2nd or 3rd story was an IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS of the context of this bombing, including discussion of the fact that the bomber was an enthusiastic but untrained an incompetent jihadist with Islamist ideological commitments and sympathies. The analysis, as per Post, Times and Journal, is that because it is losing territory, ISIS can no longer train jihadis nor direct big operations from the Middle East. Therefore, they encourage volunteerism. WP:HEYMANN now added including a number of things Nom missed WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that
Weak Keep. To determine whether suicide bombings by Molenbeek residents will have a long term societal impact requires quite a bit of CRYSTALBALLING - it isn't obvious they will or will not. This incident received at the time copious international coverage. It is also being mentioned in the subsequent months - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. At this point in time we cannot rule out that coverage will continue.Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz yes we can rule it out because working with something we don't have is crystal balling. None of those sources discussed the incident beyond a passing mention and in fact were about trends or other unrelated attacks; my nom statement already explained why that needs to be avoided. Your comment seems to rely on a philosophy: "well, we can't identify any impact or future coverage yet so let's keep it" which is hugely illogical.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read links before dismissing them as "passing mentions," this AFP story cited by Icewhiz: Islamic State claims Brussels stabbing attack: "In June a man who tried to bomb a Brussels train station was shot dead by a soldier. Belgian authorities identified the man in that incident as a 36-year-old Moroccan national with the initials O.Z., while local media named him as Oussama Zariouh. No one was injured in the foiled attack at Brussels Central station but officials said the consequences could have been severe had the bomb, full of nails and gas canisters, detonated properly. The man shouted “Allahu akbar” during the attack and prosecutors said he had sympathies for IS. Police found explosive materials in a June raid on the home of the suspect in Molenbeek, a Brussels district which has been linked to recent deadly terror plots in France and Belgium. Also Note this 25 August article Machete-wielding man shot dead in Brussels terror attack after attacking soldiers about the August 2017 Brussels attack, which has 5 (short) paragraphs about this June attack. Quite a bit of the coverage in recent months has been more than a "passing mention," and much of it has been WP:INDEPTH analysis, including two scholarly papers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The US comments about this event are mainly about the broader context, rather than about this event, to that extent they are mainly making arguments about a 'change in direction' by ISIS. It is difficult for me to logically square that with the fairly emphatic statements from Brussels authorities that NO known connection exists in this case between the perp and ISIS. To that extent I think the info would be better merged somewhere, not sure where. Pincrete (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:HEYMANN I have now added 2 academic articles to the page. in addition to a number of news articles. Nom's assertion that coverage was limited to "the same story was repeated for a few days in late June" is absolutely wrong. As is Nom's interpretation of WP:LASTING. While it is true that an event with LASTING impact "is likely to be notable." and that as per WP:EVENTCRITERIA: "Events are probably notable if... they have a significant lasting effect." It is equally true that as per WP:LASTING that: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." This bombing of a major European train station meets WP:INDEPTH WP:COVERAGE, WP:PERSISTENCE (although it only happened three months ago,) and WP:DIVERSE - the standards that actually apply to a high profile crime that just happened. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per E.M Gregorys improvements. Also per plenty of other good third party sources. Lasting effects can not be proven as of this date. This bombing meets WP:INDEPTH.BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - If anyone still cares, the recent "expansion" by Gregory is, as usual, filled with synth. I have just begun to look at this "expansion" and already found synth here. More likely to follow. I hope editors remain diligent and avoid being fooled by news commentary and passing mentions being played off as in-depth sources.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renard calls Zariouh "the new face of jihad in Europe" (1st paragraph) because he fits the model of the “homegrown terrorist fighters (HTF)" to whom Renard is directing concern in this article [6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never touched the "new face of Jihad" comment but, as I explained here, Zariouh is never mentioned in the paragraph you partially and misleadingly quoted. Instead of accepting that, you reinserted the misrepresented text and claimed I never read the piece. Both disruptive and both just dishonest.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As currently written, this is a significant event. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes can you reassess your opinion? "As currently written", the article is hampered by synth and passing mentions that can trick editors into believing the incident was more significant and persistent than it really was. Pincrete and I managed to remove a great deal of it but some remains, as evident by the tags.

NOTE: This discussion was closed on June 5 when the nominator withdrew the nomination. However, closure was inappropriate because there was a !vote to delete. I am reopening the discussion and relisting as of today. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean November 5? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M. Gregory. Mentioned in media around the world. Undeniably notable event --- much more for its symbolic significance than for any damage or casualties. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Spinner can you explain what you mean by symbolism? Are you referring to the trend of ISIS-inspired terrorism? I hope not because that would make the trend notable, not this event. Being widely reported alone isn't enough for notability according to WP:EVENTCRIT and some of the synth has been cleaned up so the article may need a second glance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick The article contains 36 inline cites, but it may as well be 36,000, since every media outlet in the world mentioned it, with the inescapable conclusion that it symbolized, in one way or another, the "lone wolf" threat that is embedded within our society. The fact that the plan, such as it was, had, indeed, been put into effect and, were it not for the amateurishness and incompetence of the perpetrator, a key transportation hub in the heart of the European Union would have become a scene of carnage, is what engendered the resulting media coverage and justifies the existence of the article which elucidates the details of the case. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator, incident without lasting impact. Being a Belgian living near Brussels, who regularly passes through the Central Station area, I can tell you that this incident did not receive an exceptional amount of coverage in our national media.T v x1 15:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too early to establish lasting impact. We don't go after POV but guidelines. BabbaQ (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:EVENTCRIT which states "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. EVENTCRIT also states "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)". At most this should be included at our existing article, Terrorist activity in Belgium. AusLondonder (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Please disregard the votes from some editors above. Per WP:NOTAVOTE it is the quality, not quantity of the argument that matters, of course. AusLondonder (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Why is this article being deleted? It is a well written article, about an attempted bombing of a major architectural monument, a major transit hub in a major European city. Clearly this is a notable event, and it is shown to have been a major even by the "references" section which includes a great deal of serious journalism in well-known publications. The article should certainly be kept.Strandvue (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And also because it is clearly silly to ask for "lasting, historical significance" in an event that has just happened. And because the attempted mass murder and destruction of Central Station is not a "water cooler story." Arguments of this type are just plain silly!18:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete - Failed terror attack in which nobody was killed or injured with the exception of the perpetrator. Even if it is supposedly "clearly silly" to ask for a WP:LASTING significance in an attack that "just happened" (it was actually five months ago) it is extremely difficult to see how this incident passes the WP:10YT. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has an abundance of sources and information detailing many aspects of notability of this attack. The failure of this attack is not relevant to notability as some users claim as there is a clear precedence of sometimes lengthy articles about failed attempted terrorist bombings, see the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt, 2010 Stockholm bombings, 21 July 2005 London bombings, 2007 London car bombs etc. User2534 (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep- meets wp:gng and wp:geoscope. the other criteria listed were designed to weed out watercooler fake news, not terrorist attacks in the central transport hub of europe's capital city. if a terror attack in Brussels isnt worth a wiki entry, then what is? XavierItzm (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Europe does not have a capital city!Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, doesn't matter. This rationale literally states valid policies don't count because..."I said so". Some editors will say just about anything.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per E.M gregory. WP:NOTNEWS is about routinely reported events, not events reported in the news. Something lasting means it is notable, but This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Galobtter (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EM Gregory. Continued coverage and discussion, including in academic sources indicates notability and not just routine WP:NOTNEWS level of coverage. If the nominator's concerns on SYNTH are those currently discussed at the article talk page (the appropriate place to discuss such issues), it seems like a honest mistake on EM Gregory's part in which they confused two different ISIS-affiliated outlets, and not something that merits wholesale deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any rationale that is literally based on "per E.M.Gregory" has the strong sense of parody. AusLondonder (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No the SYNTH is not mainly about "two different ISIS-affiliated outlets", there is an RfC on talk addressing some of the synth concerns. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to everybody Until we finally get around to rewriting AfD rules to reflect reality, please pour as much benzine ont he blaze as possible by soliciting closing admins to your POV and dropping bombs every where. Remember "No Consensus" is a valid closing decision and anything that requires a DNTR tag like at the top has a strong likelihood of ending up that way, so save breath of anythign that isn't constructed. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Out of protest and a desire to be as disruptful as possible I won't make an original rationale. Per Xavier will do, sans the geopolitical error. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How thoughtful and constructive. Thanks for your input. Are you new? I'm guessing you haven't taken the time to read WP:PERX? AusLondonder (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being humorous?, I'm not so sure. PERX is an essay, not policy. And as for the new thing I've attended 900 Afds. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:53, 14 November 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.