Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian ax attacks on Israelis


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Palestinian ax attacks on Israelis

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Most newsworthy events are not encyclopedic material. Hopelessly POV. Jmundo (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYNTH. The list gives the impression that "Palestinian axe attacks on Israelis" is a noteworthy phenomena, but there's no indication that this is a list of anything other than isolated incidents, which all fail WP:EVENT. Claritas § 09:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * delete doesn't seem to happen often enough or have enough regular coverage to warrant an article.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on my argument, this is not a list of wiki-linked articles each with there own notability and reliable sources. The incidents listed are not on their own worthy of articles for any definite reason (at least they have not been shown to be at this time). A list of red-linked articles is not within the scope of WP:Lists and WP:CLN as a list is by its nature on the project, an organization and navigation tool. This list does not help us "navigate" to anything. Although policy says lists may contain red-linked items, it does not say that it is good practice to include ALL red-linked items. An embedded list is allowed to include not otherwise notable topics within the scope of an article, but this makes zero effort to be an article. Where does this article assert the historical significance of the incidents listed? Where does this become POV? The opening sentence itself seems inflammatory, "include 13-year-old boy Shlomo Nativ and 19-year-old female soldier Liat Gabai." This is, of course, a content issue, but it's one that is central to the article. The "See Also" section of the article points to Palestinian political violence, yet we have no way of knowing for certain that all incidents listed are of a political nature. We can make the assumption that any and all interaction between Israelis and Palestinians is political by its nature, but that is the heart of a biased POV. In one incident, sourced here    and here  (two of the only sources verifiable online and centered around a single incident) the article clearly states that the attack was NOT linked a political group. Beyond that, and this is splitting hairs, but we strive to be accurate here, the attacker uses a knife and a pickax to conduct the crime. These are distinct and different from an ax. The heading "Attacks on Civilians" seems POV as it frames the attackers as all of a military or organized nature. For example, the March 2004 incident says, "An ax-wielding Palestinian wounded three Israeli civilians near Tel Aviv". This framing makes it appear as though the attacker is not a civilian. Taking this to a neutral place what if we created an article of this nature called "list of Tucson gun attacks on Sedona residents" When taken outside the context of a known conflict the basis for the list seems to fade into the ridiculous. That's why this article is inherently POV, without the POV the article loses its mis-applied feeling of importance.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point about the distinction between list articles, whose function is to organize Wikipedia articles on individually notable topics, and articles with embedded lists, which must themselves be on notable topics, is well taken. I also agree that this article at present makes no attempt to belong to the second type. However, most of the items on the list should have their own articles (one already does), hence this is essentially a list of the first type. It is of course useful for development purposes, but more importantly it (as opposed to a simple list of red links) provides summary information about each item, so it is useful for the reader. This is a natural and efficient way for Wikipedia to develop: first provide the reader with summarized information, then expand on that. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! Gruesome, but still delete. No real need to cross-categorize crimes by ethnicity of attacker and victim and by weapon. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What, no page then for List of Israeli firearms attacks on Palestinians??? Carrite (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is a documented campaign ongoing to "train" Wikipedia editors to consciously distort coverage of Israeli-Palestinian affairs; we should subject all new pages dealing with Israeli-Palestinian relations to a heightened level of scrutiny. This is clearly a trojan horse POV push and should be out of here as fast as our little legs can carry it. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - appears to be a well documented phenomenon occuring from time to time, based on RS. - BorisG (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to be well-sourced collection of individual acts of violence. It's unfortunate that there ARE enough such attacks to support such a list, but neutrally applying our notability guidelines leads me to conclude that the list meets our inclusion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Claritas. No evidence that ax-based attacks are a notably distinct class of violence. Any notable individual incidents can be documented in other articles like Palestinian political violence. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. What's next? "List of Palestinian knive attacks on Israelis"? Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  22:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Lists of Palestinian terror attacks. --Shuki (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what this would mean. Lists of Palestinian terror attacks is a list of Wikipedia articles, not a list of terrorist incidents. (Note the plural in "lists".) Also, Lists of Palestinian terror attacks is undergoing an AfD and will probably be deleted soon.Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no significance to the type of weapon used asserted by sources. Stitching together different events like this suggest that there is, which raises WP:SYNTH concerns. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Claritas, Armbrust, and Tarc. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand An interesting form of murder, and apparently a pattern in terrorism against Israelis. There are a number of Ax murder articles.  Axe murder incident, Bat Ayin ax attack, so the phenomenon is notable, and there are other articles on specific kinds of terrorism Animal-borne bomb attacks.AMuseo (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - All lists are, by definition, a collection of items, and thus any "List of.." article involves some editorial synthesis, which is allowable. The "delete" arguments above could be equally applied to just about any "list" article on wikipedia. HupHollandHup (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to more general article as WP:Listcruft. Strongly disagree with HupHollandHup: lists need to be on a notable topic no less than other articles. If the topic itself is not notable, then uniting a bunch of items together that are not really related except under that non-notable banner is synthesizing a connection rather than reporting on an already-reported connection. DMacks (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per HupHollandHup. Lists are especially important whenever we have a broad and complex set of topics. Violence in the Middle East is precisely a broad and complex set of topics. Invoking WP:SYNTH is meaningless without saying what statement or implication is made in the article that is not in the sources. WP:NOTDIR clearly does not apply here. WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay which is considerably more anti-list than the norm on Wikipedia. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see why this particular combination of attacker/victim/weapon is worth collecting into a list. It seems to imply this is some sort of trend or noteworthy occurrence when we only have 11 of them from the past 30 years, even after including attacks with a pickaxe rather than an axe. The references treat these as isolated incidents. We could just as easily comb 30 years of news reports to create List of rolling pin attacks by Japanese people on Australians or some such. Doorbellbuzzard (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep by default because the nominator has failed to state any policy based reason for deletion. Wikipedia's notability policy apply to the creation of separate articles on a given topic, not really content within articles. The fact that ax attacks are not notable (assuming they aren't) does not mean we cant have an article or list about ax attacks. Nominator's second basis for deletion "hopelessly POV" is on weaker ground. POV is never a basis for deletion. Nor does nominator explain what wording in the list does not comply with WP:NPOV policy.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the burden of proof is with the one who wants to keep the material. Per WP:SALAT: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." Are the victims notable? Any historical significance of the weapons? Then we have the problem of the scope of the list. The list is not about notable individuals but Ax Attacks of one group against another. That bring us to the dark side of POV, synthesis and original research. Why keep a non-notable/too specific list that is a fertile ground for someone to advance a narrow minded view of the world? --Jmundo (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Palestinians attack Israelis, fine, but this seems more like a collection of individually news-based items than anything else. Furthermore, as per Claritas, there is not significant coverage of axe attacks as a phenomenon to suggest notability for collating them all, which is the opposite case for the rocket attack articles, which generally have historical context and political impact to support their inclusion. That is what is missing for this article/list. WP:NOTDIR is also applicable here. Bigger digger (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Definite keep Well sourced, encyclopedic, no reason to delete.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Wikipedia is getting filled with this kind of "encyclopedic" material. ArrowPointingUp (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC) — ArrowPointingUp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Arrow, you've made no other edits outside of this comment. Did you edit under a previous account or ip address? Although any user is free to participate at AfD it usually helps bolster your argument if you have some kind of an edit history outside of the AfD discussion you are engaged in. I'm asking this only to help your comments maintain the weight they deserve in the debate.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:49, 7 September 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.