Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting


 * 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   delete. NOTNEWS is still a policy and it still trumps N Spartaz Humbug! 04:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

August 2010 West Bank shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:NOTNEWS - this is an "article" on a single news story, a news story that admittedly is covered by many news sources, but that is true of nearly every news story. WP:NOT is clear that such news stories do not merit articles. Nableezy - 01:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  --Nableezy - 02:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  --Nableezy - 02:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep this is a notable event, with repercussions for the peace process. The over use of AFD's for conspicuously notable events become a form of time wasting.AMuseo (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But if we have to go through this process, this AFD shold be listed in terrorism related AFD's.AMuseo (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When a news event happens, AMuseo, and you find yourself with the urge to write a news article complete with what early reports by Agence France Presse say, why do you not first reach for Wikinews instead of Wikipedia? That's exactly the sort of immediate reaction, that an article is needed whenever a news event happens, that Wikinews wants. Uncle G (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is yet another news article. — Mike moral  ♪♫  03:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, a non notable news article, per WP:NOTNEWS. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS as above, one-off news-of-the-day, no assertion of historical significance or impact. Better suited for Wikinews, not an encyclopedia.  Editors seem to need a brushing-up on WP:RECENTISM, as well. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep important that Hamas actually claims responsibility. Sicne Hamas is the defacto ruler in Gaza, this is in fact a declaration of war. per category Category:Terrorist incidents in 2010 Peculiar that the nom has singled out only these three Palestinian attacks and not any of the many other similar articles in the top level and sub-categories. This seems to be larger than one event, and should instead get some RfC instead. --Shuki (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Basing a "keep" on personal opinion while casting aspersions on the nominator's motivations does not a sound argument make. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - News story. The notability bar for creation of new anti-Palestinian stories should be a high one in light of the recent well-publicized efforts to train and unleash POV editors on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that this article is necessarily part of that campaign, or its creator one of its participants, only that we should hold ALL new articles on the overheated Israel-Palestine topic to the very highest standards for inclusion. This one doesn't get over the bar, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. "anti-Palestinian" is an odd objection to an article that cites  the Palestinian Authority's condemnation of an attack by Hamas and concerns that the peace process may be derailed by a Hamas-sponsored attack.  Hamas,  whatever else it is, is not co-extensive with the Palestinian people.AMuseo (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is the content of the creator's first edit: The 31 August 2010 West Bank shooting was a Palestinian terror attack near Kiryat Arba, in which four Israelis, one of the them a pregnamt women, were shot multiple times until they died.[1] Quack quack. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Pure news story, and thus doesn't belong to Wikipedia, at least in its current form (WP:NOTNEWS). DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it is notable as it was the deadliest attack in more than 2 years, and the one that occurred on the day of the start of direct negotiations. - BorisG (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Calling this article "anti-Palestinian" implies collective guilt and is morally wrong. - BorisG (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no indication of lasting impact. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Shuki and BorisG. Notable as part of ongoing event/phenomenon, Hamas claims responsibility, deadliest attack against Israelis in 2 years. Significant media coverage of event as attempt to derail peace talks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a well-sourced article on a notable terror attack. Wikipedia has space to retain articles on notable events, in addition to articles on the broader conflicts of which they are part.  As long as such articles are NPOV, I see no reason to delete.  In fact, I wish we had many more individual articles on particular battles, diplomatic incidents, and attacks on civilians, because these enable readers to click and learn about a specific incident in depth, and adds a great deal to what we can provide in articles on the larger struggle of which they are part.  See, for example, my recent article on St. Ninian's Church, Tynet.  It is a small example in the context of the larger topic of Clandestine churches, an article on which I recently did a major rewrite and expansion.  The article on clandestine churches must, in turn, be placed in the context of the Reformation.  Several users argue for  putting all terror attacks in a region  into one large article.   Following this logic, we could eliminate my articles on St. Ninian's Church, Tynet and Clandestine churches and redirect everything to Reformation.  But, can we understand the Reformation without understanding the phenomenon of clandestine churches? or understand what a clandestine church was without a small article showing us how Catholic churches had to be camouflaged to look like barns?   Similarly, can we understand the Arab-Israeli conflict, or the Islamist movement without understanding that it includes attacks on civilians?  And can we understand the nature of those attacks without small articles that explain in some detail the nature of particular attacks?  I argue that we cannot.  And that the great strength of Wikipedia is that it enables us to take our level of understanding both up to the mega level of the Reformation, Islamism, or Hamas and also to turn up the magnification for a close look at St. Ninian's Church, Tynet and a shooting of Israeli civilians as they drove along a road.   This is Wikipedia's great strength.  It lets us do something that is difficult to do in a book or in any other literary or reference form.   Let us not destroy this strength  by deleting good articles on sub-topics.AMuseo (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that construction started 2 days after this terror incident on sites across the West Bank in violation of the freeze as a direct, political response to this shooting attack.AMuseo (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Article more suitable for Wikinews. --Jmundo (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. this is an "article" on a single news story, a news story that admittedly is covered by many news sources, but that is true of nearly every news story. WP:NOT is clear that such news stories do not merit articles. The fact that something is in the news does not constitute evidence that it fails WP:NOTNEWS, obviously. This isn't a deletion nomination, it's an excercise in syllogistic fallacies. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Check out this similar AfD. In fact, no one even injured in that incident, thank God, yet virtual unanimous consensus for keep: Articles for deletion/2010 Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis. --Shuki (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP:ISAWITALLDAYONCNN herd mentality. Also, I note well over a half-dozen of the keep calls are on completely invalid grounds ("keep its notable", "keep it's harmless", no reason given at all, etc...), so it isn't as lopsided as it appears. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now Glad to see the POV mobs rushing to remove the article in its infancy. The event is unique because it is the first attack during the peace process, and is the most deadly in recent years. See Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai and Tapuah junction stabbing for precedents. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Other articles do exist" is not a solid argument for deletion neither the name calling (POV mobs). FYI: The result of the AfD for Tapuah junction stabbing resulted in no consensus so it defaulted to keep. --Jmundo (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Otherstuff" does not apply. The articles mentioned above are identical to this article. It is the same type of event, probably more important and notable considering the loads of attention it has received and recognition by the PA, Hamas, Israel, USA, etc. It is not a token event in an otherwise peaceful Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, it is a notable and reliably sourced article. Marokwitz (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Another one of these "I <3 WP:RECENTISM" articles. --Diego Grez (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not every attack in this conflict is notable, but this one is, as it was widely reported and created a great deal of speculation about how it may affect the new peace process. Robofish (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep With peace talks starting in Washington, Hamas murders innocent people in order to derail them, and brags about it. Of course it's notable.Josh02138 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Are we going to close this?
 * Speedy keep. Notable, this article is --69.201.145.140 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, please provide a rationale behind your !vote. This is not a poll. — Mike moral  ♪♫  02:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As has been noted a number of times, this was the deadliest attack in more than 2 years and there is much discussion as to how or whether it will effect peace negotiations. KantElope (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you see what it says with your WP:CRYSTALBALL? — Mike moral  ♪♫  04:19, 9 September 2010 (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.