Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Tel Aviv Nightclub 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   no consensus. Opinions are divided about whether the event merits coverage in a separate article (and, sadly, among predictable lines, at least among the contributors whose usernames I recognize). My advice is to wait for a few months to determine whether the event attracts the "significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time" as recommended by WP:EVENT.  Sandstein  07:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tel Aviv Nightclub attack

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Declined PROD. Fails WP:EVENTS, no significant coverage of any extension to justify standalone article. We are not a newspaper. A possible alternative to deletion is merge and redirect to List of armed conflicts and attacks, July – December 2011, but I am inclined to delete as there is no much to merge and most attacks in the list lack redirects. Cerejota (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Ridiculously insignificant event.  Night w   22:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability and significance are not the same thing. A crime is notable if it "attracted notice" in many international, secondary sources. And I feel it is a bit disrespectful to the victims to choose the word "Ridiculously". Marokwitz (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  Comment (lean keep) Keep reasoning a few paragraphs down ] Sources state that attacks of this nature in Tel Aviv have become rare. This one has stood out enough to receive coverage every day since the event (Google news search it) and it is safe to assume that this will continue. Along with that, the sources are from around the world and not simply from local news agencies. If you want to argue NOTNEWS, please pay attention to the wording. The coverage is in depth (something needed to satisfy the GNG) and not simply routine news like a box score or wedding announcement. Remember that EVENTS is subserviant to the GNG. Yes the article is a poor stub but that is not too hard of a fix. And before anyone argues that it is not worthy of an article simply because terrorism happens more frequently in Israel than other countries: More notable subjects means more articles even if one country's wikiproject receives a handful more articles. under their banner. And note that there is a precedent for such articles (read OTHERSTUFF completely before attempting to counter that).Cptnono (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete 9 persons wounded by a bad guy, and only local coverage. North8000 (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind amending your reasoning since it is incorrect? not local, not local, not local, not local.Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Any violent event in which no one dies anywhere is bound to not be notable. That is how jaded the RS are. There is merit in including this in the list article, but all of these news sources you provide are essentially the same, and add no new information from which to ascertain notability. There is precedent in the WP:ARBPIA area, for example, we do not have articles for each rocket attack, even those that result in death (unlike this particular incident), in Israel. We do have, however, articles that list such rocket attacks, which are well-sourced and documented. There seems to be a generalized confusion that if something is reported, even widely reported (ie GNG) it is automatically worthy of its own article. Well, it isn't always the case: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER says otherwise, as does WP:NEVENTS. If the reporting changes from the kind of police blotter style reporting right now, rather than actual historical significance and notability, we could and should revisit the question, but without claiming I have crystal balls, I am confident this will not be the case. In a matter of days not even the most yellow of the Israeli press would be giving this coverage: No one died, no group was behind this/this was lone wolf, there are no political consequences etc. Even the argument that this was notable for being isolated (ie first attack in Tel Aviv in a long while) is weak in the context of the current events at the UN, the border with Egypt, and the wider regional context. Sometimes, events which under other circumstances would be notable are not notable for reasons of timing and context. To address something fresh in my memory, this is the case with bus plunge stories, in which dozens of people die yet are not notable enough for their own article. The only reason there is notability being claimed is because this happened in Israel: I am sure that a crazy dude stabs people on an almost daily basis everywhere in the world. We do not need an article on each of them. --Cerejota (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was only "local coverage" then I would agree, but this is not the case here. The international coverage is huge. Marokwitz (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a news source; this is even more unlikely than most of the non-notable Israel events that come through here to have any lasting effects or coverage. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - on the basis of NOT NEWS. Taxi driver runs amok, no one dies, not of historical significance. Carrite (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is NOT a news source to recount events that have happened. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep NOTNEWS fails in this respect because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a high profile war, no incident is "NOTNEWS." The incident drew condemnations from governments, including the Palestinian Authority, and endangered the lives of thousands of people. Many international organizations are describing the incident as terror in nature - a very thing rare in this conflict. So of course the article needs a serious rewrite, and its present form is obviously stub - but arguments for delete are dubious at best. 1, BBC, 3, 4, 5. Cerejota, this is a pretty ridiculous reasoning: "Any violent event in which no one dies anywhere is bound to not be notable." Are you joking? So the hundreds of articles on failed bombs blots in New York, Canada, and Europe - where *gasp* no one died - is not notable? How many people have to die to make this incident notable for you? 5? 10? 100?  Wikifan Be nice  19:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely in the context of the highly notable Israeli-Palestinian conflict is were this fail notability. This is essentially the equivalent - in that conflict - of a few rockets launched by a few teenagers trying to impress Islamic Jihad after Hamas refused them for being too dumb. Those rocket attacks go into a list article, so should this non-notable attack. I can see no circumstance under which this article could be developed into a GA or FA - which is my personal criteria for having an article; if it has the theoretical capacity of being expanded into a GA or FA, then its worth keeping. Exploding whale was demoted, but it is a good example of an encyclopedic article, this isn't. Add the info to the list (the two or three lines worthy of coverage) and get it over with. Then we can speak about the real notable stuff in this conflict, such as the situation in the border with Egypt, the UN stuff etc. Or better yet, the huge protests against the Israeli government that have nothing to do with the conflict. You know notable stuff, not some crazy dude whose t-shirt should read "Terrorism: I doin it rong"--Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "a few rockets launched by a few teenagers trying to impress Islamic Jihad after Hamas refused them for being too dumb." Your interpretation and synthesis. We can only go by what the sources tell us, and the sources tell us quite a lot. You said notability is somehow dependent on death, that is a dubious assumption and not consistent with Wikipedia-terrorism related articles. Omg no one died. Very rarely do international media mention rockets launched at Israel by militant organizations unless it physically harms someone, though I imagine if Al Qaeda or the Taliban launched a few rockets at the US it would be world news. But this is completely different, your analogy isn't fair. Wikifan Be nice  20:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not transcription monkeys, we make editorial desicions, just because there are sources, that is not enough for independent inclusion into a single article. I think this is the point you miss. And do not play the systemic bias card, half of the stuff on Israel around here is not notable if it happened in a different country - this is obviously a recognition of the outsized coverage given to Israel in the world's media, but if anything, Israel is over-represented, not under-represented (in fact, I have read you argue the same thing when it comes to human rights issues in Israel, for example). Say, Kazakhstan has millions more in population and orders of magnitude more in size (its the 9th country in size in the world, larger than western europe!) and has significant problems with terroristm yet our coverage sucks. That is systemic bias, not an over-covered topic like Israel vs Palestinians. In this case, the sourcing doesn't compare to other notable events in topic are, not at all. All of the sources say the same thing, there is no further news, no wide-spread, significant coverage on this topic. Get me three sources that report significant differences and are recent (ie not from the day of the event), and you will see for yourself.--Cerejota (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cerejota is right. I always double-take when I hear someone making the silly "deleting this article on a non-notable event in Israel would be evidence of systemic bias" argument. Terror events in Israel are covered on Wikipedia far out of proportion to their actual impact, largely because of people like BabbaQ and Wikifan who take the position that terror events in Israel are inherently notable, and because of users like the ones commenting on other AfDs whose arguments boil down to "Muslims did a bad thing and the world needs to know!" Obsessing over the minute details of every day in said country is evidence of systemic bias, not the other way around. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sourcing fine Cerejota. You are grasping at straws. Article easily meets verifiability and sourcing issues - I don't see why articles should be measured against your own version of what constitutes a keep article. References to lack of deaths = notability demonstrates a lack of understanding here. Wikifan Be nice  22:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to ignore any of the points of substance raised to focus on an off-hand comment, I am strike the "deaths" thing through. What matters is the fact that there is no significant sourcing beyond the initial report. That is a clear WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NEVENTS failure. Your argument, essentially, is that this meets WP:GNG (which is doesn't), but that alone is not a reason for it to have its own article. It must not only meet other criteria, but also have the possibility to enrich encyclopedic language. Could you tell us how this enriches our understanding of significant historical context by being a stand alone article rather than part of other articles/list?--Cerejota (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Article easily meets GNG. International coverage. Event doesn't have to receive endless coverage to support it. Wikifan Be nice  04:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, you seriously need to go to WP:NOTE school, cause you flunk it. Endless coverage is precisely what WP:GNG is about. :)--Cerejota (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Article has received sufficient coverage to meet basic notability guidelines. Arguments for NOTNEWS fails because the incident occurred in a high-profile conflict. Your analogy to a "few rockets" is poor, the belief that notability is dependent on deaths is dubious, and the insistence that an event be subject to 24/7 coverage is outrageous. Now, when I have time, I'll expand the article because right now it is bare bones. Wikifan Be nice  06:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * --Cerejota (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Yes if it was a case concerning any other country basically I would agree on deleting. But not here, this is notable in the greater context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. And by that it should be kept. NOTNEWS thereby fails because of the context of the greater Israeli-Palestine conflict that this event is a part of.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources also confirm that the attack has occured so no question about that. Provided sourcing also gives me a reason to say Keep. By the way, Wikipedia is in fact built on news even though most users wants to refute that fact. If Wikipedia refused to use news as a source of information for its articles then basically no articles would be made under that assumption that Wikipedia is not news. So that is in my opinion not a reason at all to delete this article. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also notable because attacks of this kind are very rare, especially in deeper Israel. Wikifan Be nice  06:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The number of victims is not related to notability, for example see 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt. This crime is notable as evidenced by in depth international coverage, for example, in the following sources (these are just the first page of 735 results in Google News)
 * ABC News
 * El Jazeera
 * Haaretz
 * Jerusalem Post
 * Jewish Chronicle
 * Sun Sentinel
 * Ynetnews
 * Jewish Telegraphic Agency
 * GlobalPost
 * El Correo Digital (Álava)
 * RTT News
 * La Gaceta Tucumán
 * El Nuevo Herald
 * La Vanguardia
 * Sueddeutsche
 * Rzeczpospolita
 * The Chronicle Herald.

This kind of event is rare and unusual. If this WP:CRIME has attracted this level of worldwide media attention, it is notable. Marokwitz (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How much of this coverage is beyond the first day?--Cerejota (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems many of the sources were published the day after. We cannot go by your own rules Cerejota. How often do ordinary NOTNEWS crimes receive headlines from mainstream news sources, with "TERROR" in big bold black letters? Basically none. Wikifan Be nice  08:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The event is still very recent, yet the coverage appears to span several days, covering additional details such as the condemnation from Palestinian leadership and other leaders, details from the police investigation and so on. Additional details may unfold. In any case this is not a case of 1 day coverage. Marokwitz (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's an update since WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is being brought up. Just 7 hours ago 6 or 7 days later) it got mention in DefPro (only a mention though). Google news is showing plenty over the first 3 days. I think it should be noted that this source discusses the court's gag order which means there will be less news coming out about the case. But  I assume we will see more info down the road as the justice process continues. Note that it "may be difficult or impossible to determine [continued coverage] shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable."Cptnono (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: September 8 and news searches are still showing hits within a couple days. Most are only mentions but it has surpassed just a news cycle and we should be safe in assuming that whatever verdict happens will get some more overage. of course, we might even get more since sources are now discussing the turbulence and where it might go. We don't know but we do have international sources pointing to notability being "more likely", coverage that at the very least borders on in depth (detailed printed news stories but not 60 minutes yet, numerous sources, and sources that are not just snippets. Of course, this can also be summarized as it having significant coverage from reputable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.Cptnono (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Systemic bias must be avoided. I am convinced that if a man from Afghanistan would stolen a taxi in the center of New York, driven it in full speed into a crowd of people outside a large party, and then attacked a large number of young civilians with a knife, simply because they are Americans, no one here would have opposed the existence of such an article in the English Wikipedia. I ask all the people here whom argued that this was simply a minor event in which a taxi driver went mad - you are wrong and misleading - please read the article again (which has been significantly expanded), and carefully read all the sources within the article. This wasn't a minor criminal incident mention only a few in local newspapers briefly. This was a multi-casualty terrorist attack, that took place in the heart of the biggest city in Israel, carried out with the intention to strike a large group of random innocent young civilians simply because they are Israelis, and altough the security forces at the site managed to prevent a horrific mega attack this incident still left a large number of people badly injured. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right on cue - the systemic bias argument! Never mind that we cover events in Israel far out of proportion to their actual impact - never mind that giving a day-by-day report of events in one country while neglecting major incidents in another is exactly what WP:BIAS is all about - of course it's systemic bias if we don't write about every Israeli who is killed. That makes a lot of sense. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is stopping you from creating articles about major incidents in other countries. Wikifan Be nice  00:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a major incident, which is the point.--Cerejota (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a major incident, taking into account the volatility of the region and political context, which is why it received massive worldwide coverage. Marokwitz (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as noted above. In addition, these terrorist events are not just random criminal acts that are forgotten after a few weeks. Every single terrorist act, affects "peace" talks, and thus has large-scale international ramifications. This much is clear and supported by the sources in the article and the sources listed above.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOTNEWS. Despite the efforts to redefine news stories on the basis of their being "terrorist events" by some users this remains a news story with no lasting significance.  nableezy  - 02:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Marokwitz and TheCuriousGnome. Clearly notable. REmmet1984 (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Note that this comment was struck due to socking and not a change of position.
 * Keep This event is sourced by many WP:RS.So I don't see any reason for delete.--Shrike (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason is repeated a number of times, it fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS.  nableezy  - 13:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a matter of opinion. Others here obviously dont think it fails those.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but to claim there is no reason is quite clearly absurd. Especially when the response is "it has sources", which does not in any way refute the cause for deletion.  nableezy  - 13:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed above. NOTNEWS policy is for preventing the creation of articles on "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" and "first-hand news reports on breaking stories". This is not the case here. Marokwitz (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The case here, like every other "attack", is that a minor event was picked up by the press and then dropped. Every insignificant story, from Thailand to Texas, is covered in the press, many times in the international press. That does not make every insignificant story an encyclopedia article. This is as notable as this or this. Meaning, it is not notable, it is simply a news story.  nableezy  - 13:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If the above WP:CRIMEs received significant coverage internationally (didn't check but it is definitely possible), then I see no reason why they cannot be notable . Marokwitz (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as noted above. Flayer (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep definately a WP:EVENT.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2011 (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.