Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Netanel Arami


 * 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. User:Nishidani's evaluation of the sources pretty much makes the (very weak) keep arguments moot, and there was no proper counterargument offered. Clear consensus that this fails WP:EVENT. This is how sources should be evaluated in every potentially controversial AFD. Secret account 23:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Death of Netanel Arami
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See Articles for deletion/Murder of Netanel Arami: Nothing has changed, except that the Israeli authorities (after intense lobbying from the dead mans family and friends) have claimed it to be a "terrorist" death. No one arrested charged, much less found guilty of terrorism, or his death. Delete pr WP:EVENT/WP:NOTNEWS --Huldra (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  22:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  22:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Not a shadow of a doubt the author is abusing wiki pages to make a point. I suggest outside editors look at the page as it was first created by Shulmaven, who has been engaged recently in a crusade to make one-off articles on every Israeli death in pursuit of his thesis that there is a Silent intifada underway, the Jewish people are victims of a massive terror campaign by Palestinians, and the world should be tipped off via Wikipedia. I feel responsible because I wrote this ignored case up in the List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014‎ today at 13:10, and two hours later Shulmaven (re)created this article. I say 'recreated' because I didn't know, not following people around, that a similar article had been deleted earlier this month. So it's not as if, in deleting this, I am trying to rid the encyclopedia of knowledge of the case: to the contrary, I wrote a sketch of the essential details of the case there, which this article doesn't essentially add to:-
 * "'On 16 September construction worker Netaniel Arami (27) fell from the 11th storey of a building where he was working, closing vents using a rappeller's cables. His family, as well as Israeli politician Moshe Feiglin and some websites, suggested he had been murdered by Arab co-workers. The police initially insisted his death was accidental. In late November, it emerged that Shin Bet had arrested three suspects on suspicion it was a nationalistically-motivated crime. They were subsequently released for lack of evidence. The investigation is now treating it as a terror crime, and his family have been recognized as victims of terror.[55][56].'"
 * So my suggestion to delete is not 'ideologically motivated' or an example of some 'activist' censorship.
 * Correcting Huldra. The only three Palestinians on the tower were arrested on suspicion, detained and interrogated and then released for lack of evidence. We just don't know anything at the moment, other than a fact and some suspicion. Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 'likely to inflame tensions, already used in inflammatory ways, and all the more notable for that.' Oh, good-oh! It was designed for incitement, using wiki pages. I guess I'll just have to lull myself to sleep singing Amir Benayoun's recent song, which has gone viral in Israel for the same reasons. G'nite.Nishidani talk) 22:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I closed the previous AfD and just compared the two versions; I suppose they're different enough so deletion via WP:G4 is not warranted, but I'd like it if another admin would look at it. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Untrue The three suspects were arrested after "police investigators noticed that the cable he was tied to had been deliberately cut and decided to open a murder investigation.". It is now confirmed as murder and as an act of terrorism.ShulMaven (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also compared the two versions just now, and while they are not identical, I feel like the differences are somewhat superficial. The sources are different, but come from the same time period.  Some claims have simply been moved to different sections; for instance, claims about about comparisons to other incidents now appear in the Death and controversy and Political fallout sections instead of just in a single section.  The section about this topic in the context of criticism of the government (Repercussions) is even less specific than before.  I don't see a lot of new information that addresses the "lasting consequences" concern of the last AfD.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 23:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is now substantially different because within the last 24 hours the victim's family have been officially declared victims of terrorism, i.e., a deliberately committed murder committed for ethno-political reasons.ShulMaven (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The deleted version contains this article from September where the WP article noted that it was being investigated as an "apparent" act of terrorism. That the investigation has now concluded does not seem like strong evidence of persistence  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 00:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, after reviewing these newer sources, I believe that alone does push it over the G4 threshold, so I will also decline the G4 speedy. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 00:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Jethrobot, I only had a cursory look at the sources. Thanks for checking it out. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Drmies, I did ask you to un-delete article before I wrote a new article, but received notice that my request was deleted form your talk page.ShulMaven (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , you posted that on my user page, I see now. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Investigation is ongoing. Just noting that this is still an evolving story, there may be more arrests, more evidence. Certainly there will be more coverage.ShulMaven (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep facts of the case changed today. It was known to have been murder during the first AFD.  There was a gag order put in place by security services at the time of the AFD, so that although some editors suggested that a decision be deferred until a gag order was lifted, others argued for deletion.  Now the gag order has been lifted and this murder has been confirmed as an act of ethno-political  terrorism.  More to the point, the death gained notoriety because of the political support and public demonstrations  demanding that the police investigate.  Not an unfamiliar scenario in any country, but certainly the sort of thing that makes a murder GNG.ShulMaven (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There were only 3 Arabs on the site. They were taken into detention on suspicion of murder, for nationalistic motives (ergo terror). Following 'an extensive interrogation', and following a review of the case by the State Attorney's Office, it was determined that "there was no legal justification to keep them in custody.(Israel Hayom) What we have been seeing is a massive campaign by the family, and far right wing politicians like Moshe Feiglin running parallel with the investigation, that has now endorsed the view that this was an act of terror, with no evidence against the only suspects in the case. Shulmaven is, nolens volens, actively using Wikipedia to promote that view here. For all I know, it may be terror/murder. But the only fact in the public arena is that the ropes were 'cut'. If that obvious state of the ropes was known by the police since the 16th of September, why did they keep insisting for some weeks it was an accident? This is a very weird story. If the 3 suspects were thoroughly interviewed and nothing emerged that could pin a viable charge of murder on them, or even keep them in provisory detention for a longer time, how can their intentions be defined (since no other Arabs were on the site) as terroristic? The handling of this in the news has been intensely 'political' and makes no sense to any attentive reader. There would be a case for the article if, once the hysterical replication of the few facts is dropped, a case is actually made, with real evidence, leading to detailed coverage, analysis of the suspects/culprits and trial. We have at the moment, zero, posing as a certainty, and to use Wikipedia when the facts are so thin, while the gossip is immense, sets a parlous precedent (incitement). Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:EVENT. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as a recreation without significant change of a page deleted via AfD. If a speedy is declined, delete as WP:NOTNEWS/WP:EVENT. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As indicated above, there was a significant change. The assessment by the authorities changed from murder (more common) to terrorism (less common). Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The version of the article that was deleted also claimed it was terrorism. G4 isn't about whether factors external to Wikipedia changed, it's about whether the article that's recreated is substantially the same as the one that the community decided to delete. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The circumstances changes, as indicated -- the authorities' position changed. And that was in turn reflected by a change in the RSs -- new RS articles reflected that change.  That's a significant change, along the lines that makes a call for speedy delete a hollow request. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

''At any rate, that the GNG appears to be met is not that relevant (it was a noteworthy death, noteworthy for the news); what is relevant is that such a death needs to have lasting consequents of some kind or another, and this is not yet proven, obviously. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)''
 * Speedy delete for all the reasons expertly articulated by the fine editor Nishidani; the entire article is extremely WP:POINTY DocumentError (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, as minimum according to this Drmies's decision about prev. version's deletion
 * There are already new consequents and RS say about new ones after the gag order will be lifted . --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems noteworthy and sensational, and the event is likely to continue to inflame tensions, and already has been used in inflammatory ways, and is all the more notable for that.  I don't have any view about the legitimacy of the accusations.  But it is appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about this significant, notable event.  Keeping the coverage balanced is a matter for editing and for Talk page discussion, not for AFD.  There are numerous reliable sources including this Times of Israel coverage (that is already included in the article). -- do  ncr  am  20:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - whatever the problems with its creation, the article seems to be about a notable death. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, per DonCram, Bearian, and it meeting GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (GNG reads:
 * 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
 * This is fascinating to me because (1) WP:EVENT says
 * Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.
 * Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
 * Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
 * Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
 * The article is trumped up, as any experienced editor can see at a glance. Perhaps those who vote 'delete' assume what they see should be obvious to eyes inexperienced with I/P sourcing guidelines. This may not be obvious to the very experienced outside admins whose judgement is very important for a neutral, policy based perspective. Seeing that this will be approved, for the record I will note down why it, like many other articles of its kind, is a fudge.
 * The article seems to show extensive coverage over time. It has 27 citations. Examined these break down into
 * Arutz Sheva (9), actualite israel (1), Alya Express News (1); Jewish Pulse Radio (1)=Arutz Sheva; JNS.org (1); JerusalemOnline (1) (13 articles from sites that are not considered reliable for facts. Arutz Sheva being an extreme right wing settler organ, the rest being mainly obscure and derivative. Mainstream RS mention this over 2 months on about 9 occasions, concentrated in 3 days. The event was not reported in any general Western newspaper I know of.
 * Analysis by dates


 * 12 February 2014 I article (WP:OR by Shulmaven) nothing to do with this article)


 * Sept 19. Three days after the event. 1 source non mainstream RS (The Jewish Press).
 * Sept 21 (non-RS Jewish Pulse Radio =Arutz Sheva)
 * Sept 22 Arutz Sheva
 * Sept 23 I from The Jewish Press
 * Sept 30 Arutz Sheva (1), The Times of Israel, Haaretz
 * October 1 (Arutz Sheva) (1)The Jewish Press 1
 * October 2 Arutz Sheva (1)
 * November 3 (WP:OR) nothing to do with this article.
 * November 20 Arutz Sheva: a political tirade about no Arab labourers being employed in the Knesset in a settler organ citing it en passant as an apparent murder, before the gag was lifted)
 * November 25, 1 article (Jerusalem Post)
 * November 26, 9 articles, actually 8 articles. The mainstream picks up the story (6 articles mainstream, 2 are not RS:2 of them are one (Marissa Newman note 1, note 23).
 * In RS terms, the death was briefly noticed twice at the time on 19/23 September though not by mainstream Israeli newspapers was picked up 3 times Sept 30-Oct 1. On 25-26 November (Jerusalem Post, Ynet, Haaretz, The Times of Israel The Forward JTA) all picked up the announcement of 1 item of news: that the reported death was now classified as terror.
 * All the rest is reportage from the ultra right wing margins of a dubious source with a notorious contempt for Arabs, namely Arutz Sheva, which represents the settler constituency and is the only rag which kept the fringe chat on the boil. Thus we have the report of the death(mid September) and 2 days reportage it may be a crime (25-26 Nov) in the mainstream. The sourcing is thus a Potemkin village act that falls to pieces in terms of WP:RS and WP:EVENT. Once the  mainstream press made the gag order news, it has dropped interest, because there is nothing to report further. I appreciate admins are often overworked and cannot see the obvious in the details, but sometimes it goes to farcical lengths:) Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed your very long post. Assuming I didn't miss something by getting lost in it, I don't see your post as convincing. I still stand by what was said by editors DonCram and Bearian, as though I had said it myself, and I stand by it meeting GNG, which is the key to wp notability. I'm not sure that your POV (amply reflected in your choice of language, above) is reason to delete an article that meets GNG, which this one does. Plus, why there are a host of articles that you didn't mention. For example, look at all the (many more recent) articles here and here and here and here and here.

--Epeefleche (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - article may or may not have problems. but the article subject is notable per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since WP:GNG does not seem to apply, given the analysis above, I'd appreciate the courtesy of people actually responding to facts, rather than making quick atmospheric judgements. I may be wrong, but the mainstream newspapers in Israel have mentioned it on 2 days, over two months, and no (mainstream) newspaper across the globe, thought it worthwhile picking up or following. That suggests little national impact, and no international impact, which, per WP:EVENT means that this fails.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Israeli media were all over it. Haaretz is one of Israel's smaller newspapers, circulation less than that of Yedioth Ahronoth by an order of magnitude. It was covered internationally by JTA and the Jewish newspapers of France, Britain, Spain, Argentina, the US, Australia, and Canada....ShulMaven (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not accurate. Nishidani omits statements by Members of the Knesset, omits coverage in Haaretz, ignores independent reporting by The Jerusalem Post and the Times of Israel pretends that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency wire service, only ran a single article, ignores coverage in Hamodia, and who knows what else, not to mention slurring news sources he does not like..ShulMaven (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fudging again. I do not list commenta, I list the type of articles that have been used to report the event by source, and date, including the papers you cite. Of 25 sources, a full half are unusable, and most of the details comes from Arutz Sheva, which hosts crackpot conspiracy theorists (Obama,'most contemptuous and hate-filled Apologist-in-Chief,' panders to Islamic terrorists and considers Israel a hostile power!!!!) and which has been the major vehicle for pushing this (so far) non-story and has yet to obtain a regular licence. And is being increasingly pushed into Wikipedia these last weeks, despite a general tacit agreement not to use that kind of disreputable sourcing. If this case is not media hype pushed by noted political extremists and this settler media outlet, but rests on evidence, as yet unknown, that leads to an indictment, I'll race you to write the appropriate article. So far we have sheer speculation and, unlike every terrorism story from Israel, it has been totally ignored by the international mainstream press.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Opinion articles by MKs (members of Israeli Knesset) used to source MKs' opinion. Those by opinion columnists used to support sentence re: ongoing references to incident by opinion columnists.ShulMaven (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Ongoing'? The story as reported by the mainstream, emerged 25-26 November, and then died in its tracks. No one is mentioning it these last 4 days. It is a blip so far. This could change, but wiki doesn't (normatively do blips, especially those showcased byb marginal, and ferociously polemical inferior sources.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I might note Shulmaven that you keep adding minor non RS (letters home from a PhD student in Melbourne mentioning his name en passant in a list, really! etc.) mainly sources for the same 3 unit time frame (Sept 19-22, 29-2 October, November 25-6, and not actually following them. One important source was added:
 * This where Ben Hartman talking to Larry Derfner on Tel Aviv radio on the 26 November, when the overwhelming bulk of reportage is located, blows up the whole reportage in the Israeli media as a misconstruction of what the court documents say: A rough paraphrase:
 * "(He fell to his death. It was described as an accident. The only people at the scene was a co-worker and a couple of Palestinian workers in the building. Speculation arose he’d been killed by cutting cables possibly because he was Jewish. Today the court partially lifted a gag order allowing it to be said that earlier after the incident happened, the Shin Bet arrested 3 men and held them and questioned them on suspicion of killing this man but then later released them when it determined that as there was no way to really to  connect them to the crime or prove it. That’s the only thing that 100% confirmed today but from that it has been extrapolated in a lot of the Israeli media  it has been presented that it has been 100% considered to be a terrorist crime.''' It's more accurate to say that they have been investigating it as a terror attack and they arrested people in connection with that but haven’t been able to prove that."
 * What Hartman says is that the court records gave no evidence indicating it was a nationalist crime rather than a work accident, but simply said an investigation of it as a terror act had been conducted and the suspects released since there was no evidence. What Hartman noted was a media inference not justified by the facts revealed, whatever your fringhe sources (Arutz Sheva shouts). There was a political judgement to call it 'terrorist', a classification which allows the debt-ridden amily compensation. You cite the source, then fail to alter the article in accordance with what the source says, because it conflicts with the thesis you are pushing, from Arutz Sheva etc., that this is a terror murder. Hartman says this is, so far, an illegitimate inference from media hype. (He may be wrong, but if you cite a source that contradicts what you wish to claim in the article, you are obliged to include everything, not just use the source as one more proof the incident is 'widely discussed' to pass WP:EVENT.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that explains why foreign reporters based in Israel have ignored the story: there's nothing to it (so far) except local political use of the event in terror discourse, and no facts to write about (so far), except that a thorough Shin Bet investigation of the 3 Palestinians at the site led to their release after a week, for lack of evidence. It may be a crime, but it may be what the police reported it as for some weeks, a work accident (spun out as a terror crime by the family and political friends). Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Nishidani's analysis of the sourcing. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Although I declined the speedy on the basis of new sourcing, I agree with Nishidani's evaluation of the sources. This is a bit of an edge case with the November coverage, but I ultimately think it does not clear the need for persistent coverage or our criteria for events.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 16:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and Userfy Nice analysis of the sources by Nishidani. It may turn out to be a notable death, but that cannot be determined as of now. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To me, both when I wrote this article and now, the reasons for having it on Wikipedia seem the same as arguments for having Death of Tuğçe Albayrak, an article that I would certainly not wish to see deleted.ShulMaven (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe a good idea for now it to userfy it and move it back to article space when and if there are significant changes? --I am One of Many (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. There are unlikely to be developments until the security gag is lifted or an arrest made.ShulMaven (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed my opinion to userfy. My view is that once it is clear that there are important implications of his death, it will clearly be notable.  I suspect that it will happen. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete -- As per WP:EFFECT & WP:GEOSCOPE. The subject is not significant enough globally to keep. - Maduwanwela (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - It is a death in region chock full of murders and revenge killings for those murders, and the cycle goes on and on. This is simple WP:NOTNEWS; while a tragedy, it is an abuse of this encyclopedia project to use it to catalog each and every casualty in the Israeli-Palestine war of aggression.  I also note some of the same, Israeli POV-pushers here and in a recent DRV, ones that have been pushing this same sort of stuff for years on this project. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That begs the question of whether widely covered murders and revenge killings, with GNG coverage, should not be covered because there are many of them. If it's terrorism, this isn't notable? Terrorism is inherently non-notable? Actually, that's confusing real-world "notability" with wp notability. For us, notability doesn't mean "there aren't many" (or else we wouldn't cover all major league baseball players), but rather "does it attract GNG coverage?" Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything attracts some degree of coverage these days, but the simple "I saw it in a source so I must create an article about it" mentality no longer carries water, if it ever did at all. Matters that are routine news stories, local in scope, or one-event wonders, we exercise editorial discretion and separate thru truly newsworthy from the run-of-the-mill.  As of 11/23/14, 286 people have been murdered in New York City.  It is reasonably certain that there is some coverage to be found in some the newspapers for each of those 286.  It's a big city, shit happens, and I doubt any of those 286 have an article here.  In this case, it's just another Israeli killed by just another Palestinian in a region fraught with violence for decades.  Shit happens, and not many of those individual deaths are encyclopedic, despite your personal best efforts to  make them so in this project over the years. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no room for "I saw it in a source" articles. Then again -- that's not the case here.


 * Don't even just focus on the dozens of refs in the article. Look at the couple of hundred recent gnews articles, in ongoing coverage continuing to this day.


 * That's the difference between "I saw it in a source" articles (and the maybe-one-article-covered-it murder in NYC ... which contrast sharply with the coverage here), and GNG articles. We go by what the RS refs cover. Not our personal views that "oh gosh -- there are loads of these all the time, and I personally don't want to see any more of them".


 * If there are loads of GNG-covered murders or suspected murders, we cover them. Just as if there are loads of major league baseball players that meet GNG, we cover them as well.


 * We don't say: "I don't want articles that meet GNG, but that are on a subject that I have seen covered quite enough for my taste." Forget the subject. Focus on the coverage. Though I realize that a number of editors in this discussion are doing quite the opposite. Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Terrorism cases are notable, so long as they are widely covered by the press. This one was.64.94.31.206 (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That begs the question of who is doing the terrorism or, as the Wife of Bath says, who paints the lion. If it's not terrorism this isn't notable? Terrorism has inherent notability? Drmies (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2014 (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.