Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting (2nd nomination)


 * 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. I'll leave the issue of whether or not something marked as "policy" should in every case trump something marked as a "guideline" which was an issue in the first AFD for another discussion. WP:NOTNEWS says routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The issue here is whether or not this event is "routine" and whether or not it has "enduring notability". Opinions are divided on this issue. If this happened in Billings Montana (and involved terrorists) there would be no doubt that the event would warrant an article. However, it happened in a part of the world where such events are unfortunately more common, this gives some strength to the arguments that it's routine. However, there's also significant international coverage about this event which supports those advocating WP:EVENT and WP:N. On the last issue of "enduring notability", in this case I think only time will tell. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

August 2010 West Bank shooting
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nominating per Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13, primary concern involves WP:NOTNEWS. Procedural nomination only, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - A straight news story no more notable than the 15000+ murders in the United States each year. Wikipedia is not the news.  nableezy  - 03:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a misunderstanding of the WP NOT NEWS policy which refers to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Attacks on civilians by terrorist groups with political goals are not routine news. The are notable under WP:EVENT.AMuseo (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No it is not a misunderstanding and just saying so does not make it true. There is no evidence of enduring notability, nor is your belief that this is an "attack on civilians by [a] terrorist group" relevant to determining whether or not this article is notable.  nableezy  - 00:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying this shooting is no more notable than any random criminal homicide in the USA reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NOTABLE. BlueRobe (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That comments "reveals a fundamental misunderstanding" of WP:NOT, a policy while WP:N is a guideline.  nableezy  - 02:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your case is not helped by your inability to recognise that a proper interpretation of WP:Policy is guided by WP:Guideline, (isn't this obvious?). Regardless, a political homicide, with enduring political ramifications across the world and across time, is clearly more notable than a common criminal homicide. To suggest otherwise seems absurd. BlueRobe (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS and User:nableezy above.--Kudpung (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing more then a news story: WP:NOTNEWS --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, just the same as AfD #1 which unfortunately was brought to DRV for "I disagree with the result" reasons". This is WP:NOTNEWS|news]], this is not a significant or historic event.  Maybe it's a sad commentary on the state of world affairs that such attacks are considered almost routine news, but that's the way it is.  The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle to prop up importance of one's personal causes and interests.  Elevating this event to an article does exactly that.  If appropriate, reuse/recycle some of the sources in a larger article on Israeli-Palestine conflicts. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Review was closed to rediscuss, despite that fact that the count was 19 to 11, 19 for keeping (overturning) and 11 for deleting. That is why it was reopened.AMuseo (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Every source is within one week of the incident. It may be newsworthy, but not notable. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - As coverage of a news event with no lasting historical importance. This was run through AfD with a DELETE result earlier this month, appealed to Deletion Review and restored, and round and round we go... AfD had it right the first time... Carrite (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. NOT NEWS. Jimmy Pitt   talk  19:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The event was an attempt by the de-facto government of the Gaza Strip to cause the resignation of the President of the Palestinian Authority and to sabotage talks between the latter and Israel. So the notion that this was merely news with no significant impact is absurd. Add to that the fact that this was an uncommonly deadly and brutal terror attack in a relatively peaceful period in an important region, and it's easy to see why the event has received continuous coverage in reliable, independent sources until this very day (   etc.), making it a textbook case of a notable WP:EVENT. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Israeli-Palestinian conflict absorbs more attention than all conflicts combined. This event generated national-press in Israel and around the world. Articles with far less notability are hosted on Wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above two rationales. NOTNEWS is not to suppress reporting of attacks widely reported internationally. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS, unless we are going to have separate articles on every Palestinian attack, and every Israeli retaliation, from the last 10 years or more - not to mention an article for every U.S. drone strike in Pakistan, every suicide bombing in Iraq, and so on. Gatoclass (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per my reason in the first AfD. — Mike moral  ♪♫  21:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities for which NOTNEWS was intended. In addition, "routine murders" (as someone above coined the incident) do not have any Political ramifications, let alone ramifications that shape world events, as clearly demonstrated to anyone who actually reads the article in its entirety. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 00:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Stop trying to censor clearly notable political events out of Wikipaedia. The political ramifications of this shoot make it considerably more notable than a routine criminal homicide. BlueRobe (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Proof by assertion aside, try not to attempt to impeach the motives of each of the editors who feel this article fails WP:NOT, a policy of this website.  nableezy  - 02:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Arguments for deletion above are based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which in intended to scene out articles on routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities.  Politically-motivated attacks by armed gunmen who are part of a large, organized campaign of political violence are not routine news.  A WP:CONS has evolved under which individual acts of political terrorism are considered WP:Notable. This attack qualifies for Wikipedia under Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage..  Moreover the attempt to delete this article, but not articles on similar events in Europe and the United States reeks of Systemic bias.   Surely we do not accept the implication that life is cheaper in the Middle East.   Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.   "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..."AMuseo (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So, you're happy to have an article on every Palestinian and Israeli attack over the last ten years or so? Every Iraqi suicide bombing? Every US drone attack? Or is there some particular reason this attack is special and deserves its own article and the others do not? Gatoclass (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep, it is not routine but has political ramifications, as pointed out earlier, especially since Hamas has claimed responsibility for it, and now Hamas has issued a warning to the Palestinian Authority for having arrested the culprits. Implications are in connection w/ negotiations & Hamas-PA relations. As noted that the event still is receiving international coverage. KantElope (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * comment I see a strong, recent tendency to propose articles about incidents of terrorism that take place in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Gaza and the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority for deletion, while articles about incidents of violent terrorism or even about minor, failed terror plots in Europe and in the US, Canada, Australia and Britain are not proposed for deletion, or were not until someone followed a comparison that I made between the treatment of terrorism in the Near East and the treatment the article on the 2010 Newry car bombing to that page and proposed it for deletion.   My larger point is that there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of articles about individual incidents of terrorism outside the Near East.   They are rarely proposed for deletion, not even the poorly sourced articles about  very minor plots and incidents such as the 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot  I will just mention a few, all of which, including the 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot and the 2010 Newry car bombing appear notable to me.   Wikipedia, after all, "is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources."  We have articles on the  [[Los Angeles Times bombing,  1973 New York City bomb plot, 2001 shoe bomb plot, 1991 Toronto bomb plot, Wood Green ricin plot, 2004 financial buildings plot, 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, 2002 white supremacist terror plot, 2005 Sydney terrorism plot, 2006 German train bombing plot, 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, 2007 London car bombs, 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting, 2010 Pentagon shooting, 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing, March 6, 2008 Times Square bombing], Wall Street bombing, Preparedness Day Bombing, Bombing of the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple, 2009 Bronx terrorism plot, Alleged 2007 bomb plot in Copenhagen, Bomb plot against the Thomas Jefferson Cultural Center, Columbus Shopping Mall bombing plot, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack,  Connetquot High School Plot, 22 May 2008 Exeter bombing, 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, Holsworthy Barracks terror plot, Hudson River bomb plot, 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot, 2000 millennium attack plots, New York City landmark bomb plot, 2009 New York Subway and United Kingdom Plot, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting.  I could go on.  Truly.   There are many hundreds of articles on individual acts of terrorism, or individual terror plots no more, but no less, notable than these.  What I do not see is the grounds on which to argue that these and the hundreds of article like them belong on Wikipedia, while the 19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks do not.  Or that the [] or the 2010 Pentagon shooting were notable, while the August 2010 West Bank shooting is not.AMuseo (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * CANVASSING FROM PRO ISRAELI BLOG TO THIS AFD: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting blog. thanks for the pointer.  I particularly enjoyed the article about self-described Nazis editing on the wikipedia article about Hitler to protect the page from "anti-fascist progaganda."  so outrageous it's funny.   However, what's your point?  That if a Wikipedia article is mentioned on a blog we should ....what...?  If you see a bunch of sockpuppets or new users turn up, we could ignore their votes.   But, I fail to see what exactly you want us to do about the fact that some blog links to this debate.AMuseo (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not "some blog", but a pro-Israeli blog run by a blocked user who has said that "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." and "I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site."  Examples of his blog posts being carried out right after he blogs: Syrian American, right after an IP carried out the same change as was talked about at the blog: and another blog post about Oldest synagogues in Israel  right after a user carried out the same change as was talked about at the blog:. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I surmise that instead of being run a "pro-Israeli", it is run by someone with diametrically opposite political leanings, and its being to post bullshit posts so that editors here can yell "CANVASS" every time they don't like the way their afd is going. It's at most a red herring.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A mere mention is not canvasing. Start being concerned when IPs show up randomly but until then it is nothing more than someone venting. NOTNEWS is not being applied correctly in the delete comments. It is not simply "routine news reporting" and isn't over emphasis on the potentially acceptable "breaking news" (and it has of course surpassed being a "recent [development]". It meets both the General Notability and Events Notability guideline with ongoing significant coverage from a wide range of international sources that also discuss its impact on the peace process. I would write up an exhaustive list with wikilinks but enough others have already done it so we should be all good.Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:EVENT. This was not routine coverage. I was in Israel at the time this occurred, and this was Israel's main news for several days. WP:NOTNEWS is against routine news, and this was anything but routine. This has had an effect on national security, with additional checkpoints being set up, and longer lines at the airport. This was related to the peace talks, an internationally covered event with lasting impact. Linda Olive (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge (assuming it is not deleted) into the article currently named 2010 Hamas terror campaign. Whilst there has been significant coverage of this event, I feel it would be better to include it one article where it can be placed in context. Arguing for deletion on the grounds of NOTNEWS is incorrect, but I do question whether some of the minute details the article goes into at present are necessary. I feel that these could be condensed to produce one good article, rather than numerous, poorer articles. Smartse (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per JClemens and the editors he cites. Guidelines like WP:EVENT represent the community consensus as to how the often-mentioned WP:NOTNEWS policy is to be applied. To read the two as being in conflict is to reject the established community consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep cant see how WP:NOTNEWS applies here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't need an article for every incident that is news worthy. The incident is already mentioned and placed in context in Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in 2010. --Jmundo (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Systemic bias I cannot help but perceive that there is an element of Systemic bias at work when articles about terror attacks in the Middle East are nominated for deletion as soon as they are written, while, for example, 2010 European terror plot is not nominated for AFD.AMuseo (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 17 minutes. The time elapsed between my mention of systemic bias and the nomination of 2010 European terror plot for deletion.  Terror plots and terror attacks are notable events.AMuseo (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Notability (events). I see there is no clear agreement, so I've tried to form my own opinion. First I brushed through article's references. It seems sources define a topic here and it enjoys general notability, since it is reported both by primary reliable sources like Ma'an, Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz, YNET and also major international secondary reliable sources around the globe: Wall Street Journal, AFP, Washington Post, Reuters. Now what about WP:NOTNEWS? There is violence in the region all the time. It seams to be routine. However not every violent event in the region reaches pages of Wall Street Journal. In this particular case, it appears sources discuss the event in context of current round of peace talks and it is reported and analyzed widely around the world. So I guess we have both historical significance & diversity of sources which are both Inclusion criteria. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The lack of anything after September 2 (two days after the August 31 killing of four persons who happened to be Israeli citizens) pretty well shows that the original WP:NOTNEWS closing was correct. At best, this gets a mention in Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in 2010.  To hold otherwise is to open the door for an article every time a civilian has been killed in political violence anywhere in the world and anytime in history.  Mandsford 16:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are among articles sources, for clarity:
 * BBC reported on September 17 about continuation of surge of violence.
 * Ban Ki-moon released statement about this event
 * Notability (events) guides us about WP:NOTNEWS application. Please see inclusion criteria.
 * Regarding Mandsford merging idea, it seams that Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in 2010 already includes section with 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign, which have section about this articles. All mentioned sections are wordy. Maybe we should consider readability. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Broad international coverage reflects the notability here.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 1 October 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.