Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai


 * 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 for now. Most of the delete !votes simply cited WP:NOTNEWS. The keep !voters did a better job of explaining why NOTNEWS doesn't apply. Note that a keep close doesn't prevent us from revisiting this issue later. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Another POV trojan horse. No evidence that this killing of a settler is any different than any other killing anywhere. Per WP:NOTNEWS, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". TM 00:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Another POV trojan horse. Is it too much to ask that you nominate an article for deletion without maligning the creator's intentions? If you think the subject is more suitable for Wikinews, you're entitled to your opinion. But this is something that actually happened in the real world, according to all points of view, and I worked hard to describe it thoroughly and neutrally. If you're trying to dissuade people from editing Wikipedia, you're doing a great job. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My intention is not to dissuade anyone from writing NPOV articles. My problem is that it seems a group of editors are furiously creating articles which seek to demonize Palestinians. If this is not your intent, I hope you will change the way you edit articles so that it doesn't do so. Fighting to include "Arab terrorists" and emphasizing the number of children a person had then fervently reverting attempts at neutral wording are examples of this.--TM 02:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor made a direct comment towards me, so I responded. I don't think my intentions are questionable.--TM 04:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How bout you just discuss the article and not the editor, that might be better. Otherwise somebody might start questioning your motives for nominating this article for deletion.  nableezy  - 04:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. As described in the article, the killing had a significant effect on Israel-Palestinian Authority relations, which are considered among the most important bilateral governmental relations in the world. So the fact that the nom can say that there is "no evidence that this killing of a settler is any different than any other killing anywhere" is stunning. Other differences between this killing and others include the fact that this one drew at least two government ministers to the funeral and that it led to a military operation. But I'm drifting into summarizing the article, when people should just be reading it. All in all, this incident is nothing like "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports or celebrities" and everything like a textbook case of a significant, influential and widely reported WP:EVENT. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above by the article's creator, for the record. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.


 * Delete - Another in an endless series of articles attempting to memorialize news events of the Israeli-Palestinian civil war as encyclopedia articles. As usual, this is a cloaked POV push and Wikipedians need to just say no. Wikipedia is NOT A RANDOM ACCUMULATION OF NEWS STORIES, particularly a tendentiously-selected set of news accounts memorializing one team's losses while ignoring those of the other. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.
 * So -- justfixit -- memorialize both "team's losses" that are notable. See otherstuffexists.  This is certainly notable, as reflected in the clear majority of comments below.  What seems tendentious is some of the delete voters who only appear to seek to delete losses on one side, in the face of a notability that the majority/consensus clearly notes.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Again Really, how many more AFDs on Israeli articles do we need? This must be the 10th one. The killing of Rabbi Hei was a significant event and generated international press. It continues to be recorded as a major terror incident within the Israeli government. It was one of the most violent acts since Israel's link-up with the Palestinian security forces and disengagement from major checkpoint/roadbloc areas. I can think of many articles related to terrorist acts that are frequently created on wikipedia without challenge. It seems the only articles attacked are incidents involving Israelis. Surprise surprise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  --  nableezy  - 01:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 01:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For some context on why Israeli-Palestinian related articles may well be undergoing additional (and justifiable) scrutiny, please see WIKIPEDIA SIGNPOST, Aug. 23, 2010. —Carrite, Sept. 30, 2010.
 * This is not relevant in the least!!! The article was created nearly a year before this signpost issue. Looks simply like part of a POV-motivated campaign to remove any article that portrays Palestinian terrorists in an unfavorable way. Tie Oh Cruise (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to explain why articles of this ilk are being scrutinized more closely than usual — for good reason. I make no assertion that this particular article or any particular editor is part of the well-documented coordinated campaign to skew Wikipedia content. —Carrite, Oct. 6, 2010.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  --  nableezy  - 01:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 01:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Of the 13 sources currently in the article, 12 are from within 3 days of this "event". The last is an editorial that mentions this killing in one sentence. This is an open and shut case of WP:NOTNEWS. There has been no lasting impact from this and no evidence of any sustained notability. There was a spike in news stories at the time of the event and not much of any coverage since.  nableezy  - 02:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The cross-border coverage, along with the number of articles, suggests notability sufficient to satisfy NOTNEWS.  Recency of an event is not by itself reason to not cover it -- otherwise we would never have articles on events until months after they took place.  And a simple google search shows many news articles subsequent to the first three days after the event -- editors should not feel circumscribed at AfD by the refs reflected in an article.  Just the opposite.  We make AfD decisions based on what refs exist in the real world, not whether they are reflected in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not an issue of "recency", this happened 9 months ago. And a "simple google search" does not show that. Google news misindexes the dates on articles from Haaretz. For example, a google search shows this article as having a date of Sep 3, 2010 when in fact it was published on December 27 2009, 3 days after this killing. That accounts for almost all of the google results for any results since the initial spike in coverage. That is of course if you are only looking at the results page. If you look deeper than that you may find that there arent any sources covering this killing after the initial spike in coverage. You may find some sources mentioning it, as in "this killing took 6 months place after Rabbi Meir Hai was killed", but that isnt "coverage".  nableezy  - 04:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am referring to this gnews search and google search as well as this gnews search, and this google search.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My above comment is discussing the first result. Look at each of the Haaretz results on the first and second pages, the dates are misreported. Those are most of the articles that show up after the first few days. The rest barely mention the topic, they dont cover it. The second gnews does have some real results after the initial days, but again they for the most part barely mention the event. A general google search is so wide that it is useless. I dont plan on wading through every garbage site that google indexes to find 2 that may be pertinent. If you would like to feel free.  nableezy  - 04:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just glancing through it, I see a few. You can narrow it down w/various searches (e.g., include rabbi, don't include rabbi but include "west bank" or "shooting" or "killed" or "shot", etc.).  I see the mentions that you view as bare mentions as sufficient to reflect continued coverage, and am also impacted by the fact that coverage is international, which the guidance indicates is a factor to be considered.  In all searches, both spellings of the name yield more fulsome results.  Best.Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - NOTNEWS. Gatoclass (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've now added over 20 refs to the incident and its aftermath, all dated from more than a few days subsequent to the first reports.  There are more to be added/reviewed, if anyone cares to check the above gnews and ghit links.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources you added are for the most part either unreliable (Arutz Sheva) or barely touch on the subject (such as ones that say "came three months after Meri Hai was killed in the West Bank") or come from the days after the incident, such as all the Haaretz ones which you oddly only included an access date but not a date publication.  nableezy  - 23:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree -- they are for the most part reliable and many are solely about the event and its aftermath, while another discuss the event and or its aftermath. And they were produced in the google search looking for articles more than a few days after the event -- there are many more in the few days after the event.  As to reflection of dates, if any were not added in the ref that would be due to a refserv snafu.  --Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep NOTNEWS is not being applied correctly (again). It is not "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It is not against "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" since it is ongoing coverage. It is inline with the GNG with significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It also may meet EVENT with ongoing and widespread national and international coverage. Google News Archive hits shows it all. This happened in December 2009 and continues to be discussed months later. The article shows that it could have ongoing effect. It is hard to determine that at the moment but the other requirements are sufficient for this article to be kept.
 * Reasoning to delete based on POV is (again) a problem. POV is reason for deletion if it is bad enough (WP:NOT#OR is part of WP:NOT which is reasoning at WP:DEL) However, just because it is a touchy subject and might be a favored article of those with one POV or the other (those in support of Israel can see this as beating up on the practices of certain Palestinians while those in favor of Hamas Fatah and armed resistance can see this as a successful operation) but unless editors are willing to start listing how the article is POV then it needs to be not regarded as a legitimate concern.Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - agree with Cptnono. This is not 'routine news", and claimed "POV" is not a reason to delete. Tie Oh Cruise (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. Just another death in the Israel-Palestine perpetual conflict. It's funny how the conflict extends to edit warring on the internet.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note another somewhat similar AfD has been started regarding Articles for deletion/Asel Asleh.--TM 15:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I was planning to say delete on this as another relatively lesser incident in the conflict. But when I checked G News,   I saw athat it was covered not only by multiple RSs in the region & almost all the major  US newspapers, but also from Reuters India, and Il foglio, I conclude that world-wide coverage is present, and that it probably will become a significant part of the historical record.    DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per user:Cptnono.AMuseo (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per user:Cptnono. BTW what news we're talking about, it happened almost a year ago!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the news after a year. Indeed, terror attacks during a long term lull are almost always have significant international ramifications because of how they effect the peace process. Finally, to clear up some misconception that seems to be cropping up frequently these days, this is not a "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities", which NOTNEWS intends to exclude from wikipedia.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article addresses the incident and provides ample reliable and verifiable references to support the fact that there is coverage over an extended period, backing up the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's sound analysis.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant and wide-spread coverage, as well as significant effects of the incident. C628 (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.