Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beersheva bus station 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 no consensus. Perhaps reexamine this a few months or a year from now in order to be better able to determine its lasting significance.  Sandstein  22:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Beersheva bus station shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS article. There already exists a main article Israeli–Palestinian_conflict_(2015). This can be considered a WP:POVFORK from there. There is absolutely no evidence that this event has any independent importance. WP:LASTING, WP:PERSISTENCE apply. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Expanding article now. Imagine how great Wikipedia could be if, instead of spending time bringing well-sourced articles to AFD, we spent that time improving the articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely standard behaviour by EMG. Whenever an article is AfD'ed, they go around and add more stuff to it, to try to muddy the waters. Why was the article left untouched for the past few weeks? Needless to say, none of the stuff added (I can't see much, though a random "Impact" section has been added) gets around the basic objections made above. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 00:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (Kingsindian attempted to have me blocked from editing.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I improved the article with significant information form major national and international news media. More can be done about an incident that sparked national and international conversation about racial stereotyping; the difficulty security officials and civilians face in telling victims form attackers during active shooting attacks; and the proper behavior of civilians and security personnel when a shooter or suspected shooter has been shot but it is uncertain whether he has been neutralized.  The international press coverage of these issues (particularly in the Arab press) was enormous. Here .E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The case of African migrants (especially illegal migrants) in Israel is a long-time issue, to claim that this incident is some kind of watershed is incorrect. See this story from 2012, with a major politician, (currently a minister) Miri Regev called them "cancer". This article, is not about killing of the Eritrean passerby. The identity/nationality of the person killed is not even mentioned in the lead as of this moment, and was barely mentioned in the article when I nominated it. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand AFD. If an article seems to lack important information, you should add the information or tag the article. If you suspect the topic is not notable, check as per WP:BEFORE. If, as you say, you simply misunderstood the impact of this incident on the political conversation, you can withdraw this AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see why it needs standalone article. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because that is the way Wikipedia is constructed; with article on specific significant incidents that can then be linked from articles on larger issues.  This attacks passes WP:GNG because it was notable in and of itself.   Deadly terrorist attacks are routinely kept at Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it notable in and of itself, when it is already covered in the parent article? What is the enduring notability to get beyond WP:NOTNEWS?  —Мандичка YO 😜 02:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That article, even if it was well-written, cannot contain all notable material about notable terror attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Deadly terror attacks with international press coverage merit articles; terror attacks in Israel must be judged by the same standards as attacks in other countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody said it being in Israel was a factor in saying it wasn't notable. —Мандичка YO 😜 02:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I edit and start many terror attack articles. Israel ones get dragged to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Netural I can't say if the article should be included or not, I think terrorist attacks should have articles but I can't determin if this incident is that significant. Maybe a "List of Terrorist attacks in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" might resolve this issue. But if this article will stay here, it can be expanded with information about the Eritrean incident, since it caused contreversy in Israel. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Expanding article. Nom may not be aware of the extensive national and international attention given to unusual aspects of this attack.  I am expanding that section, and welcome editors to join me in doing so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I was just going to comment along the same lines as EM Gregory. Beersheva is not usually the site of "normal" terrorist attacks. Yossiea (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on our notability guidelines, such as here or here, I think this page does not qualify for deletion. In particular, this is not a "first-hand news report". This is also not a "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" as defined here. As with many recent events, it is difficult to judge how important this event will be seen in a couple of years from now. But it appears sufficiently notable at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Substantial coverage in reliable sources. AfD proponent's prediction that this will have no long term effect is a just that -- a prediction. Perhaps proponent can revisit at a later date when their prophecy pans out. However typically these type of large scale attacks have international and national ramifications especially under the specific circumstances in which an innocent person was lynched mistakenly. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 13:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I made no prediction, nor am I forced to. The burden is on the article to show WP:LASTING impact. There has been none shown. People are free to create an article if it turns out there is some magical impact to this incident independent of the larger conflict in late 2015 which has killed tens of people on all sides and wounded thousands. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think anyone can make prediction of long lasting effects of almost any recent event. However, according to WP:LASTING, 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 is one of the reasons I voted "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @kingsindian according to your logic every article in Portal:Current events should be deleted. It is impossible to prove WP:LASTING unless time goes by. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that there is a tension between covering news and having lasting signficance. However, there already exists a main article Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2015), as I noted already, which can easily cover all current events. The creation of separate WP:MEMORIAL/WP:NOTNEWS articles on one side of the conflict is simply WP:POVFORKing. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a POV-fork, but a legitimate sub-page given that main article about 2015 conflict is already very big. The only question is notability of the event, and it appears sufficiently notable to me based on the current coverage. The long-lasting effects are never possible to predict. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. If you know of any articles about Israeli terror attacks that are up for afd please let me know. I will be there yelling keep in a nanosecond. I know we like to blame the Jews for everything but it not their fault they are the victims in the majority of terror attacks in Israel. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Multiple ones have already been deleted redirected. They include this, this, this, among many others. This has nothing to do with fault of Jews, which is your language, not mine. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The last of those three links is a falsehood or misconception on the part of KingsIndian. I had begun to create such an article, possible merely at that point the title or lede sentence, then decided that the coverage did not support an article and withdrew it - all in the course of a few minutes time.  No other editors even saw it and it was certainly not judged, deleted - or even seen, by anyone but me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * EMG is correct on this point. I have struck the last link. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked closing remarks by admins for these deleted pages. According to one of them "No evidence of longterm importance is presented or accepted". I wonder how anyone on the Earth can present any evidence of long-term importance of any recent event. This is all a purely subjective judgement. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @kingsindian. Your response is off subject. You were whining that it is a POVFork to create articles about "one side of the conflict", i.e. articles about terror attacks in which the victims are Israelis/Jews (if you meant something else please explain). I responded that it is not the fault of the Israelis/Jews that they are usually the victims of terror attacks instead of the perpetrators of terror attacks and articles about terror attacks should not be deleted because it results in more articles about "one side of the conflict." What does the fact about other articles being redirected have to with the issue that was raised?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Apropos
 * "(1)I know we like to blame the Jews for everything but it not their fault they are the victims in the majority of terror attacks in Israel."


 * Just to correct you there. Please desist from rhetoric spinning disagreements with yourself as 'blaming Jews for everything' and please note that most of these incidents, both of real terror attacks, and alleged terror attacks (one with a potato peeler, apparently) did not take place in Israel, but outside of Israel, in either East Jerusalem or the West Bank, particularly in Hebron. Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "(2)it is not the fault of the Israelis/Jews that they are usually the victims of terror attacks instead of the perpetrators of terror attacks."
 * Again, who is speaking of blame? What is arguably culpable here is the persistent use of Wikipedia to promote a victim framework for one party. These events are clearly violent, several are unambiguously terroristic. By the same token, Israel's methods of extrajudicial assassination, according to many NGOs, are in total breach of the legal limits governing a belligent occupier, and the shooting of 2,617 unarmed demonstrators in 30 days (October) is, at least from the perspective of the occupied people, a form of state terror. Both sides have reasons, some sound, for feeling they are victims, but ultimately the story is in the statistics, not in the selective presentation of event articles. Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Serious comment. Perhaps this page should be deleted because the event was not notable. However telling it should be deleted because the victims were Jewish, Arabs, or citizens of country X (that's why this page was apparently nominated for deletion ) is an example of "The Plague". My very best wishes (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't fling around random accusations. My reason for nominating is present in my nomination statement. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the diff above you said: I happen to think that creating a bunch of articles on one side of the conflict when there already exists a main article is an WP:NPOV violation, as I stated already. You are free to disagree. If you continue to create such articles, continue to expect them to land at AfD. I have of course no intention of AfDing other articles... In this context "one side" obviously means Jews, citizens of Israel or Palestinians. Either way, this is not an acceptable argument for deletion, to tell this politely. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss user conduct. I ask you again to stop flinging accusations here. You can discuss this on my talk page if you want. Or you can go to WP:AE. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I responded to comment by Nishidani above. Arguing that an article should be deleted because it allegedly promotes "a victim framework for one party" (Jews, Arabs, Serbs, whoever) is wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are responding to Nishidani, then why are you using a diff from me? Discuss their point if you will, leave any accusations about me out of it. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I used this diff because you nominated this article for deletion and explained your reasons on another talk page. Your reasons are essentially the same as the reasoning by Nishidani. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't argue for the deletion of the article, so your statement is inaccurate. I made a comment, and abstain from voting. As an editor with several dozen attempts to brand me as an anti-Semite over 9 years, I'm used to the innuendo. But the observation is neutral. The editors who write these articles, User:Jethro B,User:ShulMaven, User:Amoruso,User:E.M.Gregory to name a few, have not shown any encyclopedic interest in terrorist attacks. They are focused almost exclusively, in this area, on terrorist attacks by Palestinians or Arabs. This is, arguably, not coincidental and my objection is based on a statement made by User:Sandstein some time back: NPOV obliges editors to be neutral, which I think meant, you have to show editing wise that you are looking at both sides of the coin. In articles on conflict, that is, you should show care to ensure impartial representation of both sides. Editors who write these articles don't. Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I edited in other difficult areas, but never heard that an article should be deleted because the victims were citizens of Poland, for example. This is over the top and probably something special for ARBPIA. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim articles shouldn't be written on victims with one ethnic/national background. The tetragrammaton forbid. I said people who write these articles have an editing interest not in the subject, but in the ethnic identity of the victim. The distinction is critical yet obvious. Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But you talked about "a victim framework for one party". What "side" or "party" did you talk about? Did not you mean Israel? Saying that an article should be deleted/not created because the victims were citizens of Israel would be just as wrong as with regard to citizens of any other country. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The victim framework is re Israeli Jews of course. Is there anything problematical in stating that? There was a huge response to the videos of this incident, showing to most Israelis's shame or embarrassment soldiers and civilians shooting and then beating the living daylights out of an innocent bystander, and the uproar was extensively covered. Here we have a mere whisper of what actually occurred at Beersheva. I've been watching this kind of article creation for a decade. It always comes from people with a national mission, per their editing history in the area. Never see them edit to correct some error re the other side, which is constantly misreported. If you examine the way these articles start up, there is (a) an Israeli victim (b) a Arab terrorist (c) the attack-is-deplored-internationally. Murder of Shalhevet Pass is an example: the amount of negative detail about the context, and the immediate aftermath Israeli politicians criticizing that bereft community's attempt to use the tragedy for their own settler purposes which has been left out of the article is astonishing. Death of Yehuda Shoham was another good example, but I doubt if you will take the trouble to read how the author spun it, until one simply had to step in and show all the information that the editor consistently ignored or left out in order to create the 'we-are-victims-of-Palestinians-who-are-terrorists image'. Same with E. M. Gregory. Despite scrounging around for every possible source to pass WP:NOTABILITY, he reads to a purpose, which means he downplays or ignores the very extensive comments, anguish etc that marked the aftermath of the incident in Israel, regarding racism, and mob hysteria. One assumes this doesn't interest him because he is focused on the Arab killer. Go through any of the stages of any one article in the series, and what a knowledgeable editor will remark is the information in sources he reads and yet leaves out, I think because it doesn't help the victim narrative, because that information makes things look rather more complex.
 * Israel mob lynches Eritrean after bus station attack Al Jazeera 19 October 2015
 * "At least one Israeli soldier was filmed kicking Zarhum in the head as he lay bleeding on the floor of the terminal. Another man lifted a bench and dropped it on Zarhum's head as others tried to protect him by placing a bar stool over his body."
 * Ilan Ben Zion, Police to probe ‘lynching’ of Etritrean man in Beersheva The Times of Israel 19 October 2015.
 * "A member of Knesset from the Meretz party called the attack a lynching and demanded the arrest of those responsible."
 * Hunt for Israelis who killed Eritrean man falsely implicated in bus attack The Guardian 19 October 2015.
 * "Haftom Zarhum was shot repeatedly by a security guard then kicked and spat at by a mob after going to the southern Israeli city of Beersheba to pick up his renewed work visa. In events that some Israeli media called a lynching, Zarhum was shot and wounded before being shot several more times by a security guard at the bus station as he crawled along the floor. Still alive, he was then surrounded by people who cursed and spat at him, kicked him in the head and tried to hit him with a chair.As paramedics tried to rescue him, the crowd chanted “Death to Arabs”, “Arabs out!” and “Am Israel Hai” (“The people of Israel still live”) and tried to stop them. “It’s terrible,” said a foreign ministry spokesman, Emmanuel Nahshon, one of a number of officials to comment on the killing. “It shows you what a terrible situation we are in.” Zarhum worked at the moshav (a cooperative agricultural community) of Ein HaBesor near the southern Gaza border. His employer described him as a modest and hardworking man who had fled Eritrea to Israel for safety. “All the people gathering around the man attacked him. Nobody was helping him. People just were making sure he doesn’t move. There is no human being who did not kick or beat him. Everyone took part. I couldn’t sleep last night thinking about what happened and I feel sick about myself.”"
 * "Condemning Zarhum’s killing, Human Rights Watch described it as “a tragic but foreseeable outgrowth of a climate in which some Israeli politicians encourage citizens to take the law into their own hands”."
 * Moran Mekamel I Survived the Terror Attack in Beersheva The Forward October 26, 2015
 * "That elected officials have no consensus in condemning this attack is appalling. The fact that public representatives stand behind the killers, justifying their action because of the “need of the hour,” is threatening not only to asylum seekers, but also to any citizen or resident of Israel who wants to live in a safe and secure place.. .The dehumanization of African asylum seekers in Israeli public discourse has been on-going for years. It is apparent in the blunt statements made by politicians like MK Miri Regev, Israel’s current minister of culture, who stated, “the Sudanese are like a cancer in our body.” It is backed up by countless practices carried out daily by state agents that make these humans’ lives increasingly difficult."
 * Isabel Kershner Killing of Eritrean Migrant Shakes Israeli Confidence Amid Surge of Violence New York Times 19 October 2015
 * "Graphic video images of the beating appeared to show(that's the typical NYTs's querying the obvious if there is potential to hurt Israel's image) people kicking the Eritrean man, identified by the Israeli authorities as Haptom Zerhom, 29, and hurling a chair and bench at his head as he lay injured on the ground.The Hebrew newspaper Yediot Aharonot wrote that Mr. Zerhom had been running from danger when an Arab gunman shot and killed an Israeli soldier and Mr. Zerhom was mistaken for a second attacker “just because of the color of his skin.”"
 * That's only a small set of notes on material that Gregory read, but thought best not to utilize, and the consistent omission of complexity to focus on a victim narrative is typical of this genre. Perhaps my real objection is that the refusal of such editors to write comprehensive NPOV versions of this material means other people, like myself, are supposed to step in, and clean up, by adding more circumstantial detail the original editors don't care to edit. That's both lazy, unencyclopedic, and partisan.Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is too much for me to handle, however the info and sources/links you provided above (the violence connected to this shooting) should certainly be included in this page, and this section must be significantly expanded. Overall, this is a strong argument in favor of keeping and expanding this page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, I haven't and probably won't take a position on whether this should be deleted or not. I would delete the article as it stands, because I read it as the usual attack article, and Kingsindian was correct to bring it up for Afd in the state he found it. On the other hand, the article, were it worked extensively to cover all bases, and provide the details E. M. Gregory has consistently refused to do (why does he say 'security officers shot and wounded' the Eritrean, when one policeman stood there and shot him 6 times?, per many sources) might prove noteworthy. As it stands, it doesn't cut the mustard.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nishidani can of course decide for themselves what needs to be done to the article. But this is one of the main problems with creating WP:POVFORKs. Creating random attack articles and expecting other editors to clean up your shit is not acceptable. And this is routine behaviour. I for one, don't think the article should exist in whatever state. As I mentioned already, the issue of African migrants in Israel is a long one: there is no evidence that this incident had any WP:lasting impact by itself. A quick search on Google for "Israel Beersheva Eritrean" shows almost nothing past October 22ish. The Forward op-ed is on Oct 26, and I couldn't find anything at all after that. Have any laws been changed by this incident? Any change in the long-term rhetoric? Hand wringing by people a few days after the incident, like the Forward op-ed isn't enough by itself. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I repeated Kingsindian's search. Haaretz,, ,  Times of Israel,  and many, many more.  Coverage of this incident has been massive and  ongoing.  As Senator Moynihan used to say, Kingsindian is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Only the first article is indeed dealing with the incident, which is again a simple news matter covering an Israeli Arab lawmaker's statement about the perpetrator. The other two are passing mentions in an opinion piece/news story talking about something else. If in the future, the attacker is indicted, brought to the court or whatever (not in this case, since he is dead). You will again add them to the article and claim "lasting coverage" - as you have done in other similar articles. That is not how it works. I again ask someone to point to lasting significance: have any laws been proposed or changed due to this incident, has the attitude to African migrants changed, etc. And if so, why is that not mentioned in the article? It is not my responsibility to fix other people's stuff. As it stood, the article was (and is still) simply: "Palestinian terror attack in Israel", which is simply a news story. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 02:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

KEEP. On a relative basis to articles like Jewish Israeli Stone Throwing, this is a much more significant article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.126.154 (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to closing editor This AFD was brought by an editor who has repeatedly declared his intention to attempt to delete articles about attacks targeting Jewish Israelis on the grounds that, unlike similar attacks elsewhere in the world, when Israelis are killed the event is routine. He and another editor have WP:BLUDGEONed this AFD to the point where I don't blame editors with demands on their time for being reluctant to review it. A sort of Heckler's veto is being used to drive away good editors, with the result that articles about violent attacks on Israelis are evaluated differently at AFD than similar attacks elsewhere. The problem can be solved by evaluating this article with the same standards used to evaluate University of California, Merced stabbing attack, Trollhättan school attack, Amman shooting attack, 2015 Graz van attack, etc.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

DELETE. Another WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS article. There already exists a main article Israeli–Palestinian_conflict_(2015). This article adds nothing that cannot be included under already existing articles. It is clearly POV FORK, and not notable enough for its own article.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete This is another WP:MEMORIAL article, part of a collection that seeks to portray Israelis as the victims and Palestinians as the attackers, and there is already an article that can cover these recent attacks: Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015). Nishidani's comments on the downplaying of a very significant part of the shooting (the Eritrean that got beaten and killed) shows even more clearly the focus to show one side as victims. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The creation of 2015 Gush Etzion Junction shooting and 2015 synagogue stabbing just reinforces my view what this article, the other two and the many before them is all about: creating WP:MEMORIAL/WP:NEWSREPORTS articles to show one side as victims and the other one as attackers. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Iriszoom, you misunderstand WP:GNG, the question at issue in an AFD is whether the topic is notable, If you feel material about the Eritrean who was mistaken for a shooter need augmentation, by all means edit the article. Your argument, however, is irrelevant to this discussion. Please read WP:MEMORIAL and WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You contradict yourself when you argue that that the article needs more information on the death of the Eritrean mistaken for a shooter, than argue for squeezing this article into an already overlong article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, what I said is totally relevant: this is just another article to portray Israelis as victims with the Palestinians as attackers and there is an article that this attack fits into. Nothing shows this is a notable event itself but the current cycle of violence is, which is why I think it belongs to Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015). --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction in highlighting the issue about portaying one side as victims and the other as attackers. As I wrote: "... the downplaying of a very significant part of the shooting (the Eritrean that got beaten and killed) shows even more clearly the focus to show one side as victims" or in the words of Nishidani: "... which means he downplays or ignores the very extensive comments, anguish etc that marked the aftermath of the incident in Israel, regarding racism, and mob hysteria. One assumes this doesn't interest him because he is focused on the Arab killer". --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Accuracy: the autopsy showed that the Eritrean migrant mistaken for a terrorist died of gunshot wounds, "beaten and killed" implies otherwise.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I know the Eritrean died of the gunshot wounds and my statement refers to the beating by the mob, which was well-covered. It wasn't only that he got shot dead so what I wrote is accurate. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, pr nominator, Huldra (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * IrisZoom, You cannot be serious. A lone wolf enters a civilian bus station, pulls out a pistol and shoots a guard dead. Then takes the guard's gun and shoots random civilians. The only reason this is at AFD and Rafik Y is not is that the guard shot by Rafik Y was German and the guard shot in Beersheva was Israeli. You and Nom are applying a double standard. A lone wolf terrorist is a lone wolf terrorist and his violent attack ought to be judged by the same standards, whether the terrorist targets a German or a Jew.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What I am doing is opposing the focus to portray one side as victims and the other as attackers, with this article being a recent addition to the collection, and in this case, there is already a perfectly fitting article that can cover this attack and others in the current cycle of violence. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are arguing for the imposition of special rules of (WP:NCRIME) to be applied to crimes committed against Israelis. The standard for notability must be the same for all, irrespective of the ethnicity of the victim. WP:NOTPAPER and as per WP:GNG this crime has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is (therefore) presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article.  It can, of course, also be linked to a list, and linked form relevant pages. My point here is not only that the target article you propose is already far too long, My argument is that is the way Wikipedia is constructed: with articles on specific significant incidents that are then  linked from summary articles.  this article could be usefully linked from articles on the reception of illegal immigrants in Israel, on the risks of mistaking bystanders for culprits in live-shooting incidents, on lone wolf terrorism inspired by social media, on the integration of Bedouin in Israeli society, and probably from any number of other topics.  Delete well-sourced articles on individual, significant incidents, and you reduce the strength, value and integrity of Wikipedia as a whole.  Argue, as you have, for an ethnic standard targeting articles wherein Israeli are the victims for removal, and you have make a very problematic argument indeed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am arguing for, and this has been written before by me and others, for following policies and here the case is that nothing has shown the event had any lasting WP:LASTING impact, for example, but is rather one of many attacks during the current cycle of violence. Therefore it belongs to Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015). --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:LASTING: "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." As I and others have pointed out above, it is usual to start and to keep terror attacks that pass WP:GNG by dint of intense, extensive, international media coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Then dozens of articles from this period can be created. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there are only a limited number of cases like this, where notability is established by wide, deep coverage in reliable media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't see this being much different from the rest. Events in the Middle East gets much coverage. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, in fact, not all of them do. But feel free to write articles on any criminal shootings, car rammings, or stabbings that you think can be sourced as strongly as this article is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for others. The only reason why other recent event articles aren't at AfD is because they haven't been nominated yet, really, that's all we know for sure. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, Nom, Huldra, and IRISZOOM have repeatedly and forthrightly stated that articles about attacks on Israelis should and will be deleted. That similarly written and sourced articles about similar attacks against other peoples are not relentlessly brought to AFD, whereas articles about shooting, stabbing, and car ramming attacks targeting Israelis are nominated for deletion by editors who openly announce their commitment to delete articles about attacks against "one side of the conflict" (i.e., against Israelis) is a matter of record (see above). Wikipedia is a transparent system. But in this case, Wikipedia is enabling systemic bias against articles about violent attacks on of Israeli Jews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That personal attack itself is enough to raise eyebrows. The editors whose comments you object to abstain from writing similar articles re Palestinians killed by Israeli actions - scores of dubious killings, well documented, are available for that. But there is a general agreement not to do this, for precisely the policy reasons stated above. Therefore they also consider that pushing in victim articles on Israelis is inappropriate on identical grounds. These incidents are of a daily and weekly occurrence, and do not merit article length treatment. This has nothing to do with bias, and indeed refraining from this kind of POV pushing exploiting tragic incidents is regarded as, precisely, countering systemic bias, not, as I consider your work doing, to exacerbate that by one-sided representation. Your practice would be believable if you tried to make similar articles on known Palestinian victims of numerous extrajudicial executions conducted by Israel, as documented by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and many other NGOs. Silence. Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF: "We do not have an article on y (some Palestinian deaths), so we should not have an article on this (shooting in a civilian bus station)" is Not a valid argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Other stuff (Palestinian death notices) doesn't exist because most editors associated with the P side of the I/P conflict refrain from playing that POV card in respect of the rules re WP:NEWS, WP:NOTABILITY etc. The last time someone, not me, wrote such a Palestinian article was Beitunia killings, and that was begun some 3 weeks after the event, when it was evident that the incident had notability and continuous wide coverage. You characteristically start these kinds of articles as soon as a news report comes in, completely undeterred by the criteria everyone else says must govern article creation of this type. Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As for your accusation, what I have done is to calmly discuss pattern of and an articulated attitude in the work of certain editors with regard to AFD that is damaging to the project. see: WP:PACT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The project aims at the neutral representation of relevant items to an encyclopedia, not the creation of articles to push a victim mentality POV. The only pattern here is one where, rather than impartially write articles about notable incidents on both sides of the I/P conflict, you write many on Israeli victims, ignoring the potential, were your thesis correct, to do similar articles for the Palestinian victims (God forbid. I would vote delete for them, as I do customarily for this type of article.) This is not a venue for hasbara.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. "I personally find it interesting that it was in Beersheva" and "Wikipedia must cover every event in Israel" are not valid AFD rationales. This got the usual 24 hours of routine news coverage and then one or two other articles within the same week, but at less than a month later, it doesn't look like lasting impact or coverage will be demonstrated. If we're wrong, we can recreate it, but it would be foolish to keep all of these spam articles just in case anyone covers the incidents in the future. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:LASTING: "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." Also, this attack is back in today's new cycle, Here:[.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. As follows from discussion with Nishidani above, the event is highly notable based on press coverage, however the page is quite possibly one-sided. This should be fixed by including more sources to bring the page in compliance with WP:NPOV. Having fixable POV problems is not a reason for deletion. One can tell about almost any recent event: "let's wait for a couple of months to see if it has a lasting impact, and recreate later". However, doing this is waste of time and has a chilling effect on people who create these pages. Few people will bother to recreate a page later, even if the event will turn out to be having lasting impact. It is easier to delete later if needed.My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An excellent point. It is relatively easy to set down the basic facts of an attack like this, or like this week's Amman shooting attack, when it is a breaking news story. Much, much harder to go back years later and source an article, as I recently did with 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush, when it came back into the news. The article was instantly brought to AFD, and quickly kept.  It needs improvement, and would undoubtedly have been a better article, and far easier to create in 2003 than it was over a decade later.  That these incidents tend to have ongoing impact is a reason to create the articles when the attacks occur.  That article about the 2003 terrorist shooting attack still needs work.  But with something like this week's shooting attack in Amman, other editors immediately chimed in with Arabic sources, producing s simple, accurate report that will be a useful part of the project in years to come.  As User:My Very Best Wishes says, the rush to delete well-sourced, widely covered incidents like this bus station shooting are damaging to Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is. I noted several POV errors above, and, while My Very Best Wishes sees merit in the sort of issue I raised, you haven't budged to fix it. I did some of the work for you, and you won't even get off your POV arse and insert that relevant material. Ergo, you write these not to give comprehensive coverage of a possibly significant event, but for the image spin these incidents supply readers (Arabs are dangerous). Nishidani (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sure that an article similar in the sourcing and the scope to that one would never be nominated for deletion in a subject area other than ARBPIA. Once again, my main personal objection to deletion in this case is the motivation of people who want it be deleted (same diff). In addition, someone who creates rather than destroys things, even such as a WP page that provides a reasonable info on a recent event of potentially lasting significance, deserves a credit. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely that is odd reasoning? If a perception of some psychological bias determines one's choice, it is rather pointless to say some have a negative motivation to delete, and the other therefore is positively motivated, as a creator of stuff. That goes both ways. The deleters write articles, just not this kind of article, and if there is have a psychological subtext for them, there is equally one for the person creating an article, and refusing to adjust its POV to meet NPOV standards of comprehensiveness. Recall exegi monumentum aere perennius which motivated medieval builders for generations as they con structed Chartres cathedral, our equivalent is an encyclopedia, as opposed to the pokey flimflam structures of so much flash postmodernity, as ephemeral as news like this.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NPOV and common sense, each contributor must make their best effort to create "neutral" content, which means reflecting views by sources from different sides or from different perspectives. When it becomes plainly obvious that someone does not even make an effort to comply with WP:NPOV, it may be a reason for sanctions. Everyone, including E.M.Gregory should remember it. However, merely creating a page does not look like a problem to me, unless the page has been created on an obviously non-notable subject. This is not the case here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - highly notable event. Good sourcing. Also per nonsense Delete reasonings. WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not apply guys.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Roscelese. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FreeKnowledge, Note that Rosecelese argument is invalid. as per WP:LASTING: "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." In addition to the article I cited in response to Rosecalese, note that the incident continues to be in the news cycle this weekend, as well as in the conversation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-winship/in-israel-searching-for-s_b_8549022.html).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That part of the guideline doesn't mean that we must keep any article on a non-notable event just in case it becomes notable in the future. I would assume, because that's the example given, that it's more like "when a storm levels the city of New Orleans, we don't have to wait and see if people are still writing about it in a year, because of course they will." I'm unconvinced by the passing mention in your link. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Initially neutral. Needs to change coverage to increase issue with vigilantism and the black guy. Netanyahu spoke against vigilantism (AFP) but this isn't covered properly in the article. The black guy dying is the most interesting thing that can't be covered under the general article on the attacks. With Google News, you can adjust the time to only after a certain date, eg after 20 Oct 2015 there are still results. There are other outlets covering the Eritrean issue There was another incident where Israeli soldiers killed a civilian they thought was an attacker. The article Death of Jean Charles de Menezes may be weakly tangentially related as a shooting death of a civilian by security services (which were in a state of heightened security after a terrorist attack, and were accused of racism for killing a non-white person). -- Callinus (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - largely per . It looks like the vast majority of coverage comes from a span of just a few days. Recent events aren't automatically non-notable, but that doesn't mean any article about an event gets a free pass for some arbitrary period of time (WP:NOTNEWS). It's a gray area, to be sure. It's where we have to come to a consensus about sustained coverage. Do the events and coverage so far lead us to believe there will be lasting significance / sustained coverage? I have to lean delete. That said, I notice the word "merge" does not appear anywhere in this long discussion. I'd certainly be open to a possible merge target as well as moving to draftspace to preserve the work and hopefully move it back to the article space pending more coverage. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS - which states "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". This is not a routine news story.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If that cherry-picked quote actually represented WP:NOTNEWS, we might as well change the shortcut to WP:ISNEWS. The entire point of WP:NOTNEWS is specifically all of what follows that sentence. We both know what WP:NOTNEWS says. You don't think it's applicable here; I think it is. Telling me I "misunderstand" it is not going to persuade me otherwise, especially with a selective quote. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Article on terrorism is too detailed for a short listing, part of a much larger conflict akin to creating articles on single battles in a much longer conflict Redhanker (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that perp was a radical Islamist and open admirer of ISIS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is back at AFD, but it has not been placed back on any of the Articles for Deletion lists it was on before.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My assessment was No Consensus so I'll be interested to see how a qualified admin is going to find consensus. Note I've never edited this article or Arab-Jewish conflict but have extensively edited in ISIL and other terrorism topics. A bot has relisted it BTW so that should solve E.M.Gregory's concern. Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 11:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Comment To understand why deletion of this article is destructive to Wikipedia, consider today's headline story in which Israeli troops entering Kalandia to carry out orders to demolish the home of the family of one of the terrorists responsible for the Shooting of Danny Gonen. The article on the killing of Danny Gonen, however, was deleted soon after it was created by a Nom who argued that "within a month or two this event will be almost entirely forgotten." The murder of Danny Gonen has, in fact, been the subject of ongoing coverage, some stemming from the fact that some of those involved in the murder were convicted terrorists released the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. The Danny Gonen article would be useful, if it still existed. Overly aggressive deletion of this kind damages Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, the Beersheva bus station shooting is also still in today's new and it will continue to be both in the news as the charges against the men who set upon the Eritrean illegal migrant mistaken for a terrorist move toward trial, and, perhaps more tellingly, as the public conversation about the proper behavior with regard to identifying possible accomplices, identifying whether suspected attackers have been "neutralized," and vengeance beatings of presumed attackers during and after live shooting events continues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That the killing (of Danny Gonen) is mentioned when another event happen (raid to demolish the home and that Palestinians got killed), as the Israeli policy is now again (so it isn't just because Danny Gonen was killed), doesn't prove something. It is part of the background so of course the killing will be mentioned in relation to this article about the raid, not least when two Palestinians got killed and one was critically injured. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that with that article as with this one, a terror attack has consequences. Killing by terrorists are not routine murder stories that quickly fade. They come back to public attention, repeatedly, and not merely as brief mentions in later articles, but in policy debates, in historical analysis, not infrequently in literary references, and, tragically (as with the killing of Danny Gonen), they produce fresh rounds of death.  That is why terrorist attacks merit pages.  Why it is damaging to Wikipedia to delete them.  Why Shooting of Danny Gonen should to be recreated.  And why this page should be KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. Anyone familiar with the history of terrorism and long-term conflicts, such as that one, knows that almost all incidents of this nature have long-term consequences. Hence keep.My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - This event has received significant coverage and definitely is notable. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why this page was relisted by, which is improper. Relisting is when there is insufficient participation, or lacking arguments based on policy. A ton of people have commented here, and while some are lightweight, many cite policies for their arguments. As WP:RELIST says, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 18:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I relisted because Legacypac (who originally closed it) said it was relisted but it wasn't actually relisted. Purely procedural. ansh 666 22:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the confusion comes from 's closure and subsequent revert of the closure. Perhaps it can be relisted with a past date? Because otherwise it is going to stay open longer for no reason at all. Someone should close this now, there has been enough participation and it has stayed open for a long time. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 04:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, a normal discussion can be closed any time after the 7 days are up, no matter when/if it's been relisted. You could try WT:AFD or WP:ANRFC to get more attention. Cheers, ansh 666 07:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:My very best wishes Donottroll (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Relisting (in the meaning of getting more comments) was not required or intended by me. I only intended that it be put back on the list of outstanding AfDs to close since my close was objected to - even though my close was within policy as a non-admin can close AfDs in ways that do not require Admin action, which "no consensus" defaults to "keep" meets. Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: WP:NOTNEWS; no significant effect. Esquivalience t 21:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have listed this at WP:ANRFC for a close. As to the rest, my nom remains true right up to the present version. The identity/race/whatever of the "bystander" who was killed is still unmentioned in the lead, even though some people are screaming about how it is so relevant and burning issue that this article must be kept. There is no connection (except a sidebar) present in the article with the wider 2015 unrest. This is presented as a context-free terrorist attack. The history of African migrants in Israel isn't even mentioned. The reasons are not hard to guess. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:48, 27 November 2015 (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.