Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Brussels lockdown

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 obvious snow keep. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Brussels lockdown

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

Notability not independent of November 2015 Paris attacks and WP:NOT#NEWS (just a current status of a city). Scope too narrow, anything else is WP:CRYSTAL. Widefox; talk 19:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's alternate merge targets 2015 anti-terrorism operations in Belgium (move, broaden scope), Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, Lockdown (already in). Widefox; talk 23:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Let's see how this goes for another week or so, then we can make a judgment on whether the article should stay or not. Something important can be gleaned from this situation. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL So, basically this isn't important (yet for an encyclopedia), and there's not (yet) much to be gleaned from it. Anything else is a different scope i.e. different article WP:TNT. Widefox; talk 21:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2015 anti-terrorism operations in Belgium, there already appears to be an article covering this in a broader way. That article doesn't have to be confined to events in January. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would keep it separate from 2015 anti-terrorism operations in Belgium, since that occurred in January in response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting/January 2015 Île-de-France attacks. The current lockdown is in response to the November 2015 Paris attacks. --Article editor (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—If the antiterrorism operations don't net any results, then none of what this article contains is worth keeping. If it does net arrests in connection with the Paris attacks earlier, that information can be folded in with that article. If an attack does happen in Belgium, an article will be created for that, and the information here could be added to that one. No matter how this plays out, though, the article doesn't stand on its own merits. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 05:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS, this subject would seem to be more suited to Wikinews - not every event in the news is encyclopedic in nature. Shearonink (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When CNN sends in Anderson Cooper to report live it goes beyond routine. Many raids and arrests. Whole city shut down for several days. Significant implications for how Europe reacts to terrorist threats. Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Anderson Cooper standard for gauging notability; I like it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's underlining this is big news, still NOTNEWS. The raids and arrests are outside the scope of this article. Caveat - this may at some point be independent of the actual topic, when there's long term closure but then it will be a different topic. Widefox; talk 23:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was joking. Sorry. Next time I introduce levity, I'll flag it with a clown face, or something.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a serious issue, that Brussels has to lock down not only at the weekend. It is still going on. DanGong (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. European capital is under lockdown for third day. Imagine that in in Washington, if you doubt significance. --Jenda H. (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine that in, say Brussels. It's still NEWS. It's a sentence in the topic November 2015 Paris attacks, and not independent of it. French state of emergency / the French borders being closed is also extraordinary not a separate topic or article, despite Schengen. Widefox; talk 21:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Brussels, Capital city of the European Union closed for business for the third day. A few hours of lockdown is one thing; this is astonishing. Notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A capital city of an EU country yes (not the capital city as the EU isn't a country and doesn't have a capital). Lots of NEWS is astonishing and not encyclopaedic, hence WP:10YT / WP:RECENTISM. Widefox; talk 21:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Any long-lasting significance of this event is not establish. This, like other significant events in the immediate aftermath of the November 2015 Paris attacks, should be covered in that article or Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWe are beginning to see articles about what a lockdown means, [1], [2] articles, that is that begin to establish the impact. (Michel Houlebecq's agent has probably already submitted a book proposal: Brussels Lockdown.) As is usual, however, the existence of an AFD discourages editors from building the article. Which is where a SNOW KEEP becomes functional. Articles can be brought to AFD or proposed for a Merge later. But good articles are easier to create in real time, when a topic like this is the topic of intense interest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Immediatism works both ways: one person says that the article needs to be created right now at the peril of WP:TOOSOON. The other says that the article needs to be deleted right now - even though sources that confirm notability will be out before Houlebecq lights another one. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article for what a lockdown is - Lockdown - and this (significant) one is covered in it. Widefox; talk 23:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not a reason to delete this article, provided that sources conceptualize it as a notable event, not merely as a part of a larger process.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very notable, even though there hasn't been any attacks, a European captial is under lockdown. Quite a notable event. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not an independent topic from a topic that includes this scope. Widefox; talk 21:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2015 anti-terrorism operations in Belgium per Knowledgekid87. We can always rename that other article. Ceosad (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While that may make sense, let's give this a day or 2 and see how the coverage evolves. (see this [3]) While this is not wholly unique (Boston was locked down for some hours while the Boston Marathon bombers were sought, it has been three days and I'd like to see how the press frames it as Tuesday and Wednesday dawn.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per E.M.Gregory above, Keep if independently notable (which will become apparent in a few days, I imagine), or, if not independently notable after that time, merge into Anti-terrorism operations in Belgium -- Impsswoon (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very keep. Something will come out of this. Then we can move it to that. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYSTAL. Widefox; talk 09:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources are found in coming days. But I don't see any other instances of notable city lockdowns... epic genius (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's Close this Now There is no way this is getting deleted, so let's close the AfD and get on to building an article about this event. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how AfD works, closure is dependent on the weight of comments not by votes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and policy/guideline based arguments are stronger. Sources are easy - this is NEWS, it's very wikinews newsworthy and covered in e.g. https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Suspects_detained_in_Belgium_raids . I'm not against userfy if concerned about losing work. Widefox; talk 09:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you that you nom'd this when the event had just started and at that point maybe not as notable, but it has continued, and there is enough keeps this is not going to be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDEQ "while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one". I wouldn't like to guess the consensus. In 10 years time will this exist? It's a CRYSTAL at this point (and I might add it's WP:USEFUL recentism to cover it now, but whether it becomes just a reaction or another topic we will see). Widefox; talk 13:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources (see coverage in BBC News) call an extended lockdown of an entire metropolitan area "unprecedented", and so did Belgian prime minister (The Guardian). --DarTar (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This historical event is notable and encyclopedic. JoJan (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's notability is not independent of the Paris topic. Widefox; talk 09:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there is a relation between the events, but there was a credible threat to Brussels and an unprecedented response, not just a hunt for the Paris attackers. Legacypac (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the relation is a reaction to it. Then as others have said, any raid event would be a different topic (or the Belgium topic). The scope isn't broad enough to include raids, best handled elsewhere. The lockdown topic per se is best handled at Lockdown per WP:SPINOUT (thinking over the long-term). Widefox; talk 11:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 2015 anti-terrorism operations in Belgium into this article. The lockdown is much more notable than the anti-terrorist operations in this case, and are certainly connected. I agree we don't need two articles in this case.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously a notable and historic event, and enough content to merit a separate article. (Brussels is notably also the de facto capital of the European Union, so this is a full military lockdown of the EU capital for several days with numerous arrests.) User2534 (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lockdown still going on for fourth day. With Internet and cats phenomenon. HalfW (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above SNOW KEEP, and let's put our energies into building the article. Leaving this debate open does inhibit work on the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made the news in Peru[4] and editorial analysis in Israel [5]. Clearly meets WP:EVENT, including WP:LASTING with multiple analysis articles written already, WP:GEOSCOPE (1.4 million people city), WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE. This nomination is a violation of WP:RAPID. Legacypac (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree RAPID actually is useful, and didn't see till now, for current events they're more likely to be merged/userfy etc (which is a valid outcome here). It also says "Editors are encouraged to write about breaking news events in Wikinews instead of in Wikipedia". Widefox; talk 15:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need Procedural Close as this nomination has been effectively withdrawn by User:WideFox or is the wrong forum as they are now actually advocating merger of the article. That is a different process, suggest starting an RfC on the talk page. Legacypac (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin I haven't withdrawn it, User:Legacypac please don't suggest I have. BTW, I don't get pinged if you spell my account incorrectly. Widefox; talk 15:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the discussion has shifted to rename, which does not belong at AFD. this, presumably, is what was meant by "effectively withdrawn".User:Widefox, User:Legacypac.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is clearly a SNOW KEEP, at least for now, as there is clearly no consensus to delete the article, nor is there likely to be in the short term of (say) a couple of months. There is a worthwhile discussion to be had about whether to merge or rename it, and if so to where, but AfD is not the place for it. -- Impsswoon (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively pinging, and claims of WP:SKCRIT #1 aren't helpful. Just let it run. Yes, you keeps have got some good points, but it's for the closer. Widefox; talk 19:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. not WP:SKCRIT, Impsswoon (and I) are suggesting a WP:SNOWCLOSE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can suggest it, but that doesn't mean it is going to happen. You have made your opinions more than clear please do not take this into WP:DISRUPTION. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The appeals to NOTNEWS are off base - that guideline is for routine mainly local stuff which this is not. Lockdown is a good place to mention this event because it is notable. If it were not notable it would not deserve a mention at Lockdown. I also am suggesting a SNOWCLOSE. obviously key people believe there would have been attacks in the city or no lockdown - and we often cover foiled terrorist plots. Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose New Name. This is so unprecedented that Brussels lockdown without the 2015 would work fine. Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

support renaming as Brussels lockdown.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2015 (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.