Deletion of June 2017 Brussels attack

Comment: Per  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTCRIT)

Comment: Per E.M gregory.  is about routinely reported events, not events reported in the news. Something lasting means it is notable, but {{tq|This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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  significance in an attack that "just happened" (it was actually five months ago) it is extremely difficult to see how this incident passes the 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING||WP:10YT)

Comment: that  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 .  While it is true that an event with LASTING impact "is likely to be notable."  and that as per : "Events are probably notable if... they have a significant lasting effect." It is equally true that as per  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  ,  (although it only happened three months ago,) and  - the standards that actually apply to a high profile crime that just happened
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEYMANN||WP:LASTING||WP:EVENTCRITERIA||WP:LASTING||WP:INDEPTH||WP:COVERAGE||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:DIVERSE)

Comment: 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.   now added including a number of things Nom missed 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:INDEPTH||WP:HEYMANN||WP:BEFORE)