Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer


 * 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 keep. There seems to be a rough consensus here that the available sourcing indicates that this is more notable than a routine crime. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The deaths of these two Israelis, while tragic, was the topic of newspaper coverage at the moment, but has not resulted in any lasting effects of historic significance. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The article meets WP:DIVERSE and appears in books by experts in the field --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is still is reported by WP:RS even after two years only from the last month so it was not routine event.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously a notable event, covered by CNN and a host of others. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Attack was reported by variety of sources and was notable for the alleged police cover up to avoid retaliatory responses. ' Ankh '. Morpork  17:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - this has 0 chance of being deleted, but it fails NOTNEWS. No persistent coverage. Users will say but it is covered in all these newspapers. Yes, I know that. So is every announcement of a settlement expansion, so are most Palestinians killed by Israeli forces, so are many attacks on olive groves by settlers. These are specific incidents in a more general topic. That general topic is what should be in an "encyclopedia". These articles belong on a memorial site, not Wikipedia.  nableezy  - 17:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So why you didn't voted delete for Khalil al-Mughrabi? or propose Faris Odeh articles for deletion?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because al-Mughrabi's death had lasting significance and was the subject of in-depth coverage over a long period of time due to the Israeli cover-up. As for Odeh, get real. That is perhaps the most famous image from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That would be a bit like deleting Tank Man. But there have been nearly 5000 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since early 2008. Another 40 have been killed by Israeli settlers. I could, if I were so inclined, find sources from the BBC, AFP, Haaretz, al-Jazeera, Maan, ... for a large number of those, and I could, if I were so inclined, write an article using those sources. I dont. Because those arent articles that belong in an encyclopedia. Last year, 516 people were murdered in the city of Chicago, my hometown. I could find sources for most of them and write an article. But that would not make it an encyclopedia article, any more than any of the series of articles created about Israeli victims. This is, supposedly, an encyclopedia. No real encyclopedia would have an article on Asher and Yonatan Palmer.  nableezy  - 22:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Tragic, to say the least, but no historical or major political significance. Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 18:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Does the fact it changed the IDF policies and was a source of the police spoksman invesigation make it with a political siginificance ?109.226.53.159 (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Despite both Israelis and Palestinians thinking everything they do to each other is of earth-shattering importance, it really isn't. This is routine news coverage of a tragic event.  No lasting significance, no impact on the larger world or even the local one.  People died, people were arrested, and sentenced.  Over and out. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per Shrike. Was discussed in scholarly sources not contemporaneously to attack. I don't see any deletion discussion on terrorist attacks in which Jews weren't the victims. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mentioned in a list of events is not discussed. As for the last sentence, yeah ok. Whatever you say.  nableezy  - 22:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is another example of mentioning --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yup. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACK pretty obviously apply here. If these deaths weren't surrounded by the obvious IP-conflict issues, the article would have never been started. For couple seconds I was wondering whether these death might become "of historical significance" and gain notability in future, but given that the deaths occurred in 09/11 and this article wasn't started till 08/12, it seems obvious that this will remain a minor event. NickCT (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep A couple of points not made before: Firstly, Quite a lot in Wikipedia links to this article. Secondly, rock-throwing in the Israel-Palestine conflict is a controversial and much discussed issue. This is easily Googled. (I get over 3 million hits). Supporters of the Palestinian position vis-a-vis Israel's claim that Israel uses "disproportionate force" against children or adults that throw stones, that rock-throwing is an innocuous activity rarely causing casualties.  The Israelis do not see it that way, and these deaths by stone demonstrate that rock-throwing is NOT innocuous and provide justification for Israel to prosecute rock throwers of whatever age.  It is understandable that partisans of the opposing side would want to make this evidence of the lethality of rock-throwing to go away, and that could well be the basis for some of the DELETE votes above. Opportunidaddy (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (no chance of policy being honoured here of course) while merging the incident into Rock-throwing incidents in the Occupied Territories, if you are serious about encyclopedic quality articles, Opportunidaddy and co. I.e.
 * Under Israeli military order 1651, throwing stones is an offence which can see a child as young as 14 sentenced to 10 years behind bars if it is directed at a person with the intent to harm, or up to 20 years if thrown at a vehicle. DCI says children as young as 12 can be tried in Israeli military courts and imprisoned without charge for up to 188 days, although most are detained for between two weeks and 10 months. Rock throwing for Palestinians carries a heavy sentence, under military law, and some 700 are arrested for the offence each year.
 * Jewish settlers throw rocks at the IDF and aren’t prosecuted This rule is almost always ignored if the rock throwers are Jewish settlers on expropriated Palestinian land, chucking rocks at the IDF.
 * For instance you can firebomb (a form of throwing) a Palestinian taxi and seriously injure its occupants, have your DNA found on the site, and yet have the case dropped for ‘lack of evidence’, if you have the right ethnic makeup, i.e. you aren’t an Arab.
 * Or or shoot an old man on a donkey, Ali el Harib, and never be tried for 'lack of evidence'.
 * As Nableezy notes, there are thousands of similar incidents of Palestinian deaths one could write up as single page incidents such as the case of Mohammed Suleiman a-Zalmut. In October, 1998, Hammel visited his sister, Kama, at Itamar and then set out on foot, knapsack on his back, to Avri Ran's farm. On the way, he encountered a 77-year-old Palestinian, Mohammed Suleiman a-Zalmut, from the nearby village of Beir Fouriq. For reasons that are unclear, Hammel smashed Zalmut's skull with a rock. I hope no one does that. The one-off incident strategy means WP:NPOV is neatly sidestepped by militant POV-pushers, since you no longer have to give an overall picture or context, but just keep piling on articles on victims on one side. If this was a partisan tit-for-tat war, Opportunidaddy, the Palestinian POV-pushers would win hands down for sheer volume of tragic incidents in their favour. They refrain from this generally, fortunately.Nishidani (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I don't think your post is exactly NPOV either. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 20:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nishidani's argument is perhaps one of the most convincing I've ever read on those delete pages. Perhaps I am a bit biased because I already voted on the same side as he/she did, but if I were to vote again, I'd base it on what they said. Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 18:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant murder case that had alot of coverage Crystalfile (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No convincing evidence has been presented supporting the "enduring notability" of this event (as we should consider per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). The only sources that have been presented outside of the immediate news coverage of the the event and the trial are:
 * 1) A listing in Gilbert's "atlas" alongside other listed events that similarly would not meet notability requirements for a stand alone article such as an Abbas appearance at the UN, an Israeli announcement of settlement expansion, a Quartet statement ect.
 * 2) A brief mention in a Gerald Steinberg Op-Ed. Dlv999 (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. A source from only last month was presented above and a memorial service was held four months ago.' Ankh '. Morpork  22:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The source was not "presented above" at the time I made my comment. Shrike went back to insert the source into the comment twenty minutes after I made the post. On the substantive point as two whether these two sources are evidence of "enduring notability" I would say no. Your source for instance is a news report covering an annual ceremony that commemorates Americans and Canadians that have fallen in Israeli wars. Dlv999 (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject received a great deal of attention and is certainly notable. Everyking (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Y'know, when I have an AfD on the watchlist and I see someone's entry clocking in at around 174 bytes, the immediate assumption is "this is going to be crap". I am rarely disappointed.  Try to provide something more than WP:ITSNOTABLE, please. Tarc (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think my comment was actually a good deal better than the nomination itself. The press coverage was quite substantial, beyond the level that anyone could fairly characterize as routine. Therefore the subject is notable. What more argument is needed? Everyking (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed it was not routine coverage and WP:DIVERSE was met.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment What and others appear to be missing is that WP:DIVERSE is just one of three conditions of coverage (that in itself is just one of three factors) that are described at WP:EVENT.  Yes, the event was covered in diverse sources.  And yes, the event's coverage has lasted for some period of time (but only because the trial continues and has not yet concluded).  But the event has not proven to have any lasting effect.  (Will any laws be changed because of this event?  Will the conflict between Israel and Palestine be affected one iota by this event?)  Nor has the event had any broad geographic effect.  (No one outside of the immediate neighborhood where the event occurred has been affected by the event.)  So, in the broad sense of WP:EVENT, this event fails the criteria.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you wrong on this WP:EVENT is quite clear on this "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)."-this criterion was clearly met.
 * Morever it clear meet the general notability criteria per WP:GNG.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - NOTNEWS
 * Who else was killed in the conflict on the same day, 23 September 2011 ? One man, mid-30s, father of seven, shot near Qusra in the West Bank. Quick search for sources that covered the killing; United Nations, The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, Ynet, Haaretz, The Telegraph, BBC, The Independent, JPost, B'Tselem, IDFblog, Yahoo/AP, AP, MSNBC, Fox PressTV. For the coverage in Wikipedia, see last but one paragraph in Qusra. It could perhaps benefit from a slight expansion but it's about the right level of coverage for an encyclopedia.
 * Who's reading Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer ? Approximately no one..
 * Dedicated articles about events like these are a playground for agenda driven editors. If Wikipedia's objective were to demonize people and exploit the death of innocents as part of a pointless and disruptive information war or if the notability of victimhood was meant to be established by ethnicity based sampling of RS, I might vote keep. But at the moment they aren't.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - obviously received extensive international coverage at the time of the event, and continues to be covered two years later, as documented by Shrike, in or  - thus meeting the WP:GNG. Arguments along the lines of "but no one is reading it" are not grounded in any policy as a reason for deletion, nor are arguments that other, perhaps equally deserving articles  about other deaths have not yet been written.  All Rows4 (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, after 101 edits you know all that?  nableezy  - 16:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Wouldn't it be administratively more efficient and time-saving just to post an exception notice that says:'All articles created to deal with Israeli deaths at the hands of Palestinians need not be challenged because they are invariably passed by an automatic majority, and are all newsworthy, so neither WP:EVENT nor Wikipedia is not a newspaper applies to them? Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The tragic event is clearly notable, as per Shrike. The attacks that may or may not occur on Palestinians are a separate situation and do not affect the notability of this event. Also, they were not presented in a reliable or unbiased manner, and I'm not impressed by the attempts to obfuscate the discussion by changing the subject. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 21:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well written and well sourced, and according to WP:N/CA, "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." The incident is covered by major media in at least two countries. I do also think the international aspects of the case do strength the notabilty of this article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic, subject of in-depth AND persistent coverage by reliable sources worldwide. The "impact" section lists several significant results of this attack. Marokwitz (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You aren't helping yourself with the snarky attitude. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 17:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not on wikipedia to "help myself" but to contribute to encyclopedic-quality articles. It's not 'snarky' to familiarize oneself with an on-going problem, and a pattern of support. The only improvement is that these template articles started out invariably with a header speaking of murder (one or two still survive i.e. The Murder of Shalhevet Pass) until someone senior nudges the editors to alter at least that. I could write several articles a week like these, for the other side. I don't and have advised others not to do so, or get sucked into this game. I once even experimented to see how reactions would turn out if I wrote up an incident-type hitting the other side (Zion Square assault) and even forewarned admins I'd do so. Unfortunately for that project, far too many articles appeared which transformed the incident into a major episode, so my experiment failed. But compare that page with the kind of stuff you get on this kind of page. Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All I'm seeing here is someone who appears to have an anti-Jewish bias injecting that apparent bias into this discussion. I am not impressed. It's not my fault if you chose not to write articles "for the other side". Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 18:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Try looking for the things you aren't seeing rather than drawing conclusions based on all you are seeing. Nishidani's point is entirely rational. If AfDs have a near zero chance of resulting in delete there is no point posting them. That is certainly the case for articles about Israeli deaths at the hands of Palestinians. Not posting the AfD in these cases would be administratively more efficient and it would save time. That is just how it is. Procedures need to deal with how the ARBPIA topic area actually is rather how it should be. Approximately no one is reading the article so it doesn't matter whether it is deleted or retained. The only effect of this AfD is that it has reactivated a near dormant likely sockpuppet of a topic banned editor involved in the CAMERA infilitration campaign and a likely sockpuppet of another topic banned editor that has been dormant for months. It would have been better if that hadn't happened.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * anti-Jewish bias????? And the evidence for that bullshit charge is what exactly? Or did it become standard practice to accuse others of antisemitism with no basis around here?  nableezy  - 19:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The evidence is all above. I might not have even bothered to !vote here if I hadn't been so disgusted with the fact that an AfD regarding an article about murdered Jews was being used as a platform to redirect the focus toward perceived injustices against Palestinians. Also, note that I said the editor appears to have an anti-Jewish bias. I could be wrong about that, and if so I apologize, but that was how they came across to someone who had no real prior involvement in related discussions. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 20:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See, this is what passes for standard discourse around here now; editors get to freely toss around charges of antisemitism (couched in cover-your-ass verbiage like "it appears", "it seems", etc...) without repercussion. AutomaticStrikeout did it just now,  did it a few weeks ago. Tarc (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sherlock, we havent been using this as a platform to redirect the focus toward perceived injustices against Palestinians. We have said, repeatedly, that article for BOTH Palestinians and Israelis killed that show no lasting impact do not belong. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has said that this is only true for Jewish victims of Palestinian violence. It is likewise true for Palestinian victims of Israeli violence. The point that was actually made which you apparently failed to understand, and not the one that didnt impress you, was that if somebody were interested in writing "articles" about Palestinian victims that have generated the same type of coverage as the "articles" on Israeli victims that there would be thousands of such "articles". I use quotation marks because none of them are actually articles, they are memorial pages. If you cant restrain yourself from popping off with bullshit accusations because of an apparent inability to actually understand what people are writing then I am quite happy that I failed to impress you.  nableezy  - 20:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever, the conversation is pointless anyway. The consensus is clear the event is noteworthy and you have a hard time respecting that. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 20:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You still dont have a clue about what you are talking about. That hasnt stopped you before, so I doubt me saying anything here will stop you in the future. So for once you are right, the "conversation" is pointless.  nableezy  - 20:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, given that you insist on demeaning the opinion of everyone that dares to disagree with you as to the outcome of this AfD, I guess this conversation is pointless, unless you are willing to consider toning down the rhetoric. As I said before, I apologize if my comment, which I have struck, was in error. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 20:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Im the one that said that I think the people who disagree with me are racists. I must have forgotten. Sorry about that demeaning comment, really. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, satisfies GNG. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep notable high-profile attack which had persistent coverage in prominent reliable secondary sources worldwide. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep submitter doesn't make a valid argument for deletion (misstates article retention criteria), and most !votes for delete are just variations on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Editorial Voice (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There isn't a valid argument for deletion. This source for instance characterizes the incident as a "setback" to the "hopes" of "direct Israeli-Palestinian talks". The argument for deletion is that the incident "has not resulted in any lasting effects of historic significance" to which I would counter that a setback to talks is of historical significance. Bus stop (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2013 (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.