Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Dutch-Turkish diplomatic incident

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 WP:SNOW Jayron 32 15:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Dutch-Turkish diplomatic incident[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS; minor diplomatic flare-up (contrivance by both parties on the basis of domestic politics), article justified on basis of recentism. If content to be retained, probably warrants merging either with Netherlands–Turkey relations or Turkish constitutional referendum, 2017. Mélencron (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly, this is not a minor diplomatic flare up. We're talking about flag burning, closing embassies, threatening with sanctions, blocking consulates, deporting ministers and a prime minister referring to their NATO-ally as fascists and Nazi-remnants. Also, as far as I can see now the subject indeed has minuscule sections in the two aforementioned articles (Netherlands–Turkey relations and Turkish constitutional referendum, 2017) but that information does not add up. One section uses Turkish sources, the other uses Dutch/European sources. If anything, that should be an argument for retention of the 2017 Dutch-Turkish diplomatic incident-article, as a place were views and possibly consensus on the incident can be gathered.AKAKIOS (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content already available in the two articles mentioned in the nom (and if those sections are deficient, that should be addressed, but is not an argument to keep this article). Too soon to tell whether this will have any lasting effects. For Pete's sake, this happened yesterday evening! This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. --Randykitty (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it's false and incorrect to claim this happened yesterday evening; this has been developing for weeks. AKAKIOS (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep content is notable, well sourced and too long for a merge. --Fixuture (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "content is notable", could you expand on that? How does this meet the guideline for notability of events? I cannot see this suqbble meet any of the criteria listed. Just saying that something is notable isn't enough... --Randykitty (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can't see how anyone could consider this event to be not notable. And it meets all the inclusion criterias on that page. --Fixuture (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Objectively, how could you not consider this irrelevant? AKAKIOS (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why the rush to AfD for this? There's no deadline or hurry for Wikipedia. The nominator should try for AfD again in a few weeks or months if there's no sustained news coverage. As for the "why not merge..." point raised by the nominator - we have Merger Discussions for that kind of thing. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it's the other way around. Before you create an article, you show that it is notable. There is indeed no deadline, so what's the hurry in creating this article before we know whether this is going to have any lasting significance? Despite Fixuture's claim, this doesn't meet a single one of the criteria of WP:EVENT. The article creator should try to create this again in a few weeks or months is there's going to be sustained news coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm again sorry, but this is totally untrue. In fact this article meets most if not all of the criteria of WP:EVENT. 1) This event has already had major effects on the views and behaviors of societies and is directly connected to important legislation and an election. 2) As for its geographical scope, it has been reported extensively in both local and major international news outlets thereby also meeting the 3) 'Depth of coverage-criterium'.4) It has multiple and diverse sources, meeting the 'diversity of sources-criterium'. Honestly, how can you claim this article does not meet WP:EVENT when it so evidently does? AKAKIOS (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(rather)Keep I can in some way understand the position to say this incident is not relevant enough. It is also very young. However it reminds me a bit to the incident that happened some time ago, when a Russian fighter jet was shot down by Turkish military, causing immediate diplomatic tensions. Yet both nations it seems came closer pretty soon after that. This incident right now is, to my opinion, on a similar tensed level. Regarding the shootdown there is a particular article. In my opinion, eventhough this situation is pretty fresh, it is definitely worth an single article.--Joobo (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying this.AKAKIOS (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an argument to avoid in this kind of discussions... --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Exemplo347 -Pivox (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This incident is serious enough to warrant an article. It is being widely reported worldwide. At best, the nomination for deletion was premature. Mjroots2 (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a serious incident. And it is a developing story, I think even more coverage will be witnessed. Kavas (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yep, and like any good newspaper, we have to report on it, right? --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Perhaps I'm the only one to find this ironic, but Wikinews, which unlike WP was actually created to report on current events, still has no article about this... --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC describe it as an unprecedented diplomatic crisis. Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very noteworthy and significant especially giving both countries are NATO members. GWA88 (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another !vote solidly based in policy! To all people participating in this debate: please be aware that just saying "this is important" or something similar is not a policy-based !vote and likely to be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: So when does it become noteworthy? I am asking this, cause i can understand your point, yet imo this incident definitely is extraordinary and very unique, particularly regarding the fact that Turkey is actually a Nato ally of Europe and also of the Netherlands.--Joobo (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable incident which Turkey claims will have repercussions. It is probably essential to understand this incident to understand the Turkey-Netherlands relationship. Kind regards, 92.108.198.54 (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is me. Timelezz (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Akakios; this isn't a minor diplomatic encounter, saying that embassies are being threatened and sanctions are possible. This could be trouble for neighboring countries as well as NATO or the United Nations. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but this is still a big deal. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relatively minor dispute as of now. We can speculate all we want about what might happen in the future, but as of now this is just a war of words with little significance. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:Snow. I can't imagine any likely scenario where a consensus to delete would develop over the next few days. -2003:CA:83C4:CF00:6C88:B805:BD0D:5055 (talk) 15:01, 13 March 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.