Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egypt scorpions 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. Anyone desirous of renaming the article is welcome to do so by gathering a consensus on the article talk page, or simply following WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Egypt scorpions attack

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:NOTNEWS, event and article come across as a one-off happening that likely would be hard-pressed to be placed elsewhere. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 04:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 04:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say draftify—it's not completely out of the question that this may have some lasting significance—per WP:RAPID, let's put it in a drawer for now, and revisit this when the picture's a little clearer. FOARP makes a good point about draftification—we should keep and come back to this later, when the effects are clearer. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - As always with a freak event that makes global news and an article is written right after it, it is just too soon to know what the impact of this actually is. It is quite possible, even likely, that it will continue to be discussed as a remarkably freak weather event for decades to come, or have other consequences. It may be cited e.g., as an example of climate-change causing seriously harmful event. Per WP:NEVENT "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". Oppose drafitying as this is not a page-quality issue: it is a perfectly well-referenced page and should remain up. Draftifying will also make it less likely that anyone works on it in future to identify whether it did have WP:LASTING effect or not. FOARP (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly satisfies WP:GNG with plenty of international news coverage from New York Times, Washington Post etc... Hughesdarren (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Extensive coverage in reliable sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to pass BASIC. ——  Serial  19:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify: This looks like an entry from Wikinews. Clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events, which is not at all proven here–it is at the very least too early to tell. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 06:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Plenty of current coverage, we'll see if it's continued. (also, this sounds absolutely horrifying) -- Mike 🗩 18:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If kept, rename Egyptian scorpion attack Aswan scorpion invasion. The appalled Grammar Police (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The current title is suitable for a horror movie in the style of Sharknado, but this improved title is perfect for an article that begins with: "In biological warfare, an Egyptian scorpion attack is a tactic used to to sow panic and fear ...". While there was a considerable invasion of scorpions in human habitats around Aswan that had been spared by the floods, it was not an attack . Also, "Egypt" is unnecessarily broad; We have articles named Downing Street mortar attack and London, Ontario truck attack, not England mortar attack" and Canada truck attack. If the article is kept, it should be renamed to something like Aswan scorpion invasion. --Lambiam 12:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename as suggested by Lambiam. PianoDan (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.