Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 French Hill Junction massacre


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

2002 French Hill Junction massacre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article entirely devoid of sources, excepting for the names of the victims, making unattributed claims and showing no lasting impact. In short, while a tragic event, not a notable topic for an encyclopedia article. Nableezy 02:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 02:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 02:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep - the article now contains several references, both local and international. Including one from 2004 recalling this incident. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont see any sources providing any in-depth coverage outside of the aftermath showing any type of impact.  nableezy  - 04:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The impact was significant. It altered the president of America's plans, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat demanded a complete stop to all Palestinian attacks, and it was mentioned in this analysis by Time Magazine.  I'd say it fits now for an article on such an attack. -- Activism  1234  06:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mentioned is not coverage. No source shows any type of impact outside of the immediate aftermath. And if your bar for significant impact is that a president delayed a speech, then I really do not know what to tell you.  nableezy  - 06:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - At the time of this AfD nomination, Nableezy was completely correct in nominating it, as it was devoid of any references. However, the article is now properly referenced next to each statement and passage, and had an impact that demonstrates notability (for example, it altered the plans of President Bush and Yasser Arafat called for a complete stop to attacks, something that didn't always happen).  Passes WP:GNG and was a significant attack that was covered in international outlets. -- Activism  1234  06:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - This was not a minor criminal incident which was only covered in a local newspaper for a short period of time - it was a nationalistically motivated terror attack carried out in Israel's capital, in one of the busiest bus stops in Israel, by a terrorist organization, and was aimed at killing innocent Israeli civilians simply because they were Israelis. The event was widely covered in the Israeli media and the international media. Terrorist attacks with significant national or international press coverage are inherently notable. In addition, it should be noted that this attack and the rest of the terror attacks committed during the last decades had, unfortunately, a lot of influence on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. I really do not understand why anyone might think this is a trivial event. I assume you would have never attempted to argue that this is an non-notable event if a similar terror attack would have been carried out by a terrorist organization within the United States or Europe. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgetting that it didnt happen in Israel, why dont any sources show any lasting impact or this a lot of influence that you claim?  nableezy  - 13:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Must we debate this over and over and over again? --Bachrach44 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes.  nableezy  - 13:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see that references were added to establish notability, as defined by WP:GNG. This is part of a nearly complete series of articles on prominent militancy attacks in the history of the Arab–Israeli conflict. Marokwitz (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Proof by assertion. How was this a prominent militancy attack?  nableezy  - 13:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. It was reported internationally and had an impact on the peace process. There is also sufficient sourcing. ' Ankh '. Morpork  14:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourced now.  -- No  unique  names  17:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant lasting effects or persistent coverage, per WP:EVENT. Marokwitz's comment about having "nearly complete" coverage of everything that's ever happened in Israel is actually a point in favor of merging together all of these non-notable events that can perhaps be said to have a collective effect. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:GNG met ("a topic is presumed to have met the criteria for notability if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). The clarifying guideline, WP:EVENT provides possible support ("Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards...). There was at least some national and international impact and it was very widely covered in diverse sources. As part of WP:EVENT: WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE are all met after looking at the sources in the article and then doing Google News and Book searches.
 * I also wanted to point out that 1)the history shows a potential 1/rr violation 2) There is precedent for such articles (why editors would want to continuously scrub Wikipedia's coverage of actions meant to oppose occupation is beyond me). Cptnono (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2012 (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.