Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Reuven Shmerling


 * 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. There is no prevailing argument among the participants. Even if we abide by the nominator's wish to discount WP:RAPID-based arguments (and I'm not suggesting whether that that would be appropriate or not), it does not shift the consensus to delete.

Given the number of AfDs similar to this one in the recent past, many of which have closed without a clear consensus, it may be time for a policy refinement.  A  Train talk 13:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Reuven Shmerling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not news. This incident was in the news, mostly regional, for about four days because it was called suspected terrorism. However, it appears to have been a monetary dispute. Even if it was terror, which needs a trial not news reports to confirm, there is no long-term impact or significance to a wide region. The story was covered in predominantly Jewish sources; nothing wrong with that but it fails WP:DIVERSE. No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE from four days in the regular news cycle and potential coverage (no WP:CRYSTALBALL please) on a trial is WP:ROUTINE. Remember, the affects of WP:RECENTISM on a recent story and please avoid employing a "wait and see" tactic to this AFD. WP:RAPID goes both ways and that alone has no assessment on the notability, or lack thereof, of this tragic but unnotable crime. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that Nom misrepresents the facts. As shown on the page and in discussion below, this is officially an act of terrorism.  Nom's mistaken assertion that this was a "monetary dispute" appears to have misled at least one iVoter below, who changed his iVote. Advise Nom to be more careful in future to read sources WP:BEFORE and exercise care in describing topic under discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per WP:RAPID. There is coverage. It actually has been confirmed as terror - Reuven Shmerling recognized as victim of terrorism, YNET, 15 October 2017 - not that this is relevant for WP:GNG / WP:NCRIME - what matters is coverage. At this point it would be crystal balling to assess the future persistent (or lack thereof) of coverage. In terms of coverage level - national level coverage is AOK for NCRIME. Notability is assessed per coverage - and in this case - 15 days of coverage - during which coverage is sufficient for those 15 days.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * read my comment about WP:RAPID -- it has no bearing on notability. Routine news reports about a crime is not a sign of notability, it's just expected. I do agree, it "would be crystal balling to assess the future persistent of coverage" which is why an article should have never been created on this incident. Until, or if, we are offered actual analysis or impact of the alleged crime, we have no indication of notability whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Murders are not routine, and in this case it is not routine murder covering. In most murder cases - we have an article the next day, maybe two, and little else until the trial. In this case we have several news items coming in several spurts throughout the 15 days from the event.Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, sadly, murder is routine. 437,000+ people are murdered globally on an annual basis. We cannot create 437,000 articles a year. AusLondonder (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Murders that get covered in national and international media are not routine by Wikipedia standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This has no encyclopedic value. Wefihe (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:RAPID as article was already created. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply "its not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" .Also WashPO is not Jewish source ] so its meets WP:DIVERSE too--Shrike (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I dont get why these articles keep getting created early and why they keep getting nominated. Would I have created this article, no. But since it has been created I think you need time to tell whether or not it gets deleted. This has been the consensus consistently on these nominations. -  Galatz Talk  11:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a ton of sources to the article that demonstrate notability. -  Galatz Talk  12:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This event may become notable later, in which case we should create an article then; but we cannot predict this. It might be appropriate to add this incident to List of terrorist incidents in October 2017. RolandR (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. As established with hundreds of afd's, terrorist attacks in the Mideast are considered notable due to their long term and wide ranging effects on the conflict. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And what long term and wide ranging effects did this attack have on "the conflict" ? Or does other stuff just exist and nothing else?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note - WP:RAPID does not apply to this nomination. It has been 14 days since the incident and it has fallen out of the news cycle. I expected the "wait and see" !votes regardless but hope an admin gives less wait to these moot arguments.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Even a tiny bit of research into the topic would have shown you that there is a gag order on the details of the case. What do you expect them to report on meanwhile? The killers were arrested alive, so you know it will continue to be covered as their trail begins. Additionally what do you consider it stopping being covered? The fact that 4 days ago it was covered when the President visited the family, or that 2 days ago it made press because even an Arab MK went to pay a shiva call. I think the fact that the family is still sitting shiva definitely makes your assertion that its faded out a little premature. -  Galatz Talk  17:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So, hypothetically, if these assailants died after the attack and no trial took place, would we even be having this disagreement? The media commonly updates people -- there is nothing unique or analytical about it. Notability is awfully weak, if not non-existent, if you are depending on the routine announcements of a trial. Could you agree with this compromise: put the article into draft space until the subject has actual analysis and ramifications. You even agreed the article should not have been created (a passive delete) so why advocate for keeping a news story?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:BREAKING it basically agrees with exactly what I said, so the fact that I wouldn't have created it, does not mean I want it deleted, two very different things. And once again you are trying to twist my words, saying why it will still be in the news to dispute your comments that its already gone, does not infer anything if they were killed. I am simply saying that you cannot say its out of the news when there is so much left to do go, its impossible to draw a conclusion on a chain of events that didn't happen. -  Galatz Talk  18:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Its impossible to draw a conclusion on a chain of events that didn't happen": so where is the notability ? Are you implying something notable is going to come from this, eventually? We can only work with what we have. At this point, right now notability can not be established. Maybe later when (or if) this develops more than routine reporting but right now that is uncertain. We do not work with uncertainties, otherwise all our notability guidelines are rendered worthless. I'll ask again, would putting this into draft space be a reasonable compromise since you are so sure notability will be established during or after the trial?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Right now we have enough coverage to establish GNG. More than enough (a number of bursts, diverse, reliable, non local, etc). What we do not know is if this will be PERSISTENT. Hence, WP:RAPID applies. With the gag order on the case, most wiki editors who aren't aware of what's being gagged, are not able to assess potential persistence here, which in any event is crystall balling.Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop attempting to twist words. My comment is in relation to your made up past event, and you are now trying to say I am making comment about how future stuff works. -  Galatz Talk  13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:RAPID. Disparage article creator for rushing to start an article, and Nom for rushing to delete without running a proper WP:BEFORE when even a brief, good faith search would have shown that investigators are calling this terrorism, and that coverage is not ROUTINE (Nom has a track record of making WP:POINTy nominations of terrorist incidents for deletion.)   However, article exists and, as Icewhiz states, we diverse, reliable, non local, non-routine sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And, WP:HEY, kudos to User:Galatz for editing the micro stub that was into a brief, solid presentation of the facts of this case to date.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note this call for additional opinions by nom at a particular venue, despite active input hso far diff revision as of 19:49, 19 October 2017.Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not realize my edits were being so aggressively monitored. Thanks for the update on my neutral and brief message !TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a routine news story with no current indication of notability or significance and therefore has no encyclopaedic value. Pincrete (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete however tragic this is to his family and friends, it simply does not have any encyclopaedic value,Huldra (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No encyclopedic value whatsoever. If this murder turns out to be something more than a routine crime, and if the killing has repercussions, it may be appropriate to have an article about it. Until then, put away your crystal balls, because you don't know whether this story will have "legs", and we don't keep trivial articles on the small possibility that a news story might develop into something more. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- not a mass casualty incident & no apparent encyclopedic relevance. A routine news story at this point, and I'm not convinced by the suggestions that WP:RAPID is applicable here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- That it has been been declared an act of terrorism pushes this event beyond a WP:ROUTINE murder. It has also been the subject of worldwide coverage. It at least meets the WP:GNG. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note - ' comment about terrorism has absolutely no bearing on notability as even some of the keep voters have noted. Even if it did, the sad reality is terrorism is becoming more and more routine (we literally have lists devoted toward individual months) so to say this incident is somehow unique is a misstatement. Also note that the incident has not been the subject of worldwide coverage. Lastly, anything can be covered for a few days but that does not mean it passes WP:GNG, especially when it falls under WP:NOT.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And how does it fall under WP:NOT? Additionally worldwide coverage is not a requirement for WP:GNG. As discussed above we have had continuous coverage for the past couple weeks so there goes your few days comments. -  Galatz Talk  18:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that this incident is somehow "unique", just that it satisfies the project's notability guidelines. Even if terrorism has become more routine (I'm not really sure that it has or if it is a bias towards WP:RECENCY), we shouldn't delete articles about it solely for that reason. There are sources from the US used in the article which shows that this incident has attained, if not worldwide, international coverage. I also think that this article does not fail WP:NOT; it is not a memorial, not about routine news, not making predictions about the future nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * how is it not news? The media is simply rehashing the same story and giving occasional routine updates with no further analysis or indication of long-term ramifications. And a single source from The Seattle Times is not reflective of the US covering the incident or persistent international coverage. Other voters are steadfast on keeping the article despite its failure of our notability guidelines but I have hope you strongly reconsider.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So Are you saying if     , all of which are non-Israel websites having reported on it, were in the article you would change your mind? I cant wait to see what stretch excuse you come up with next. -  Galatz  Talk  18:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All reporting the exact same story in the exact same way with no actual substance. Great, thanks; the pinnacle of why Wikipedia is not a newspaper. They are all either from October 8th or are Jewish sources reporting on what Israeli sources said. Nothing wrong with Jewish sources but it doesn't demonstrate any diversity or persistency. Galatz I am trying to have a discussion with another editor; if you are just here to disrupt it and prove how lost you are, I would appreciate if you just stepped aside. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the incident is news but it is not routine news. WP:NOTNEWS is in regards to routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities; this incident is none of these. This incident is being investigated as a terrorist incident and it is my position that gives it notability. If the motive for the murder had remained thought to be a monetary dispute, or if the investigation yet determines this was not an act of terrorism, I would !vote to delete but currently I'm inclined to include it because it is not a routine murder. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you . I happen to disagree because it is just an alleged act of terror at this point; the accused and their defense will tend to disagree and perhaps claim another motive. Only the conclusion of a trial will confirm anything so it was far too soon to even consider creating an article. Also note your quote routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities: the word "like" means it is not limited to those examples. Other things apply and there is no inherent notability to the possibility of terrorism.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Criminal act is not like or anything near " announcements, sports, or celebrities".You have to gain consensus to change the policy.--Shrike (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope . I don't needed added consensus to make the policy more clearer for you. Routine news includes crime and NOTNEWS is regularly applied to it. Crime, and this may come as a surprise, occurs daily and the news routinely covers it because it is a "good" story that sells papers, gets viewers or online subscribers. We aren't trying to do that. That took some thinking but not that much and the fact that you write the exact same rationale inherently for these scenarios tell me you never took the time to consider that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well among many AFDs you initiated you almost(?) never gained a consensus to your view.Any crime that reported in multiple intentional news outlets is notable per our policy.--Shrike (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * just because enough editors willfully ignore this policy and damage the encyclopedia that does not make it "my view"; it is a reflection of the community. And for your "international news" statement, WP:EVENTCRIT disagrees: "A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article". And: "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". Isn't it odd the policy describes violent crime and most crimes in general as routine or a media event, like I have said many times. My rationales tend to be more consistent and accurate because I take them directly from the policies I cite, not my POV.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep it per WP:GNG which says if subject is discussed by the reliable sources and discussed in detail without any need to write per WP:OR then the subject is notable. But here he is part of an event then we should have an article on the event instead. Article is written from encyclopedic point-of-view so WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply.  Greenbörg  (talk)  17:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * anything can be written in an "encyclopedic point-of-view". That doesn't mean you can just outright say NOTNEWS doesn't apply. There is no clause that says that anywhere. But whatever, if someone wants to keep an "article" they can write just about anything.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I find it quiet amusing that in multiple AfD you have accused of WP:BLUDGEON (such as Articles for deletion/Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010) and Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh attack (2nd nomination)) yet its exactly what you are doing here. -  Galatz  Talk  13:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Accused? Actually, I've proven it at ANI already so it's just a fact now. Baiting me will not work but I appreciate the effort. Maybe you could put that much effort into understanding our guidelines? Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not attempting to bait you in any way shape or form, just pointing out your hypocrisy. Additionally considering you keep being so insistent on articles like this and your keep having the losing argument, I suggest that it is you who needs to better understand them. I think a HUGE factor you are missing is that all of the guidelines are just that guidelines, but GNG trumps all others. -  Galatz Talk  13:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "No consensus" isn't a "losing" argument sorry to say . Perhaps you should read what GNG has to say like: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not...". So GNG does not trump all. I made the statement this is WP:NOTNEWS and supported it thoroughly with our criteria for events. You, on the other hand, used the good ol' wait and see argument for an incident that happened over two weeks ago because you think it might be notable with even more time. I work with what we actually know, not what we possibly will know.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This really isnt a topic for here, so perhaps it should be moved elsewhere, so after this comment I will refrain from commenting again here. Firstly you should read the background section of WP:EVENT, which states that they are to attempt to help you navigate GNG, so how does GNG not trump it, if this is sub-part of GNG? You quote WP:EVENTCRIT but read the nutshell at the top An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. National scope is sufficient yet you argue its only national. Significant coverage, yup it definitely has that. Non-routine, I would say its not routine, how many of these attacks show Arab MK's going to shiva, I could give other examples but its a big one? Period of time is vague, but I would say its safe to say its premature to assess when the gag order is still in place, which is common sense, not WP:CRYSTALBALL. As I said before, I am happy to discuss further, but this is not the proper location. I have opened a section on my talk page, quoting my text from here if you wish to comment. -  Galatz Talk  14:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:EVENTCRIT which says "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. Absolutely nothing to demonstrate this murder was of exceptional notability. AusLondonder (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

— Lifeisstudyinghard (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 126.209.23.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I'm agree with @Greenbörg Lifeisstudyinghard (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep it seems to be notable, simply by the amount of attention all the above have been paying; perhaps better paid contributing elsewhere, perhaps not. The fact is, if it was reported in non-Jewish media sources, it would be too obscure for many of the above to uncover, so citations would become difficult; that is not the problem, as citations exist, keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.23.138 (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The usual editors are obviously whitewashing obvious terrorist attacks. Suspected terrorist attacks are never routine Bachcell (talk)
 * Please assume good faith and stop engaging in personal attacks. Closing admin should discount your !vote. AusLondonder (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Saw this referenced at Village_pump_(policy), where this discussion was advanced as the epitome of editors failing to understand that routine news is not acceptable. It isn't. But this isn't routine news. Easily meets the applicable notability requirements. Coretheapple (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - and obviously so. There were 302 murders in Detroit in 2016. 762 in Chicago. Each of those are about as notable as this, meaning that while they may be tragic events they are not, as individual events, topics suitable for an encyclopedia. And WP:NOTNEWS is still, last I checked, Wikipedia policy. WP:GNG is not.  nableezy  - 23:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. Nableezy fails to encounter arguments made above that coverage of this murder had been national and international. (Note that there is a temporary hiatus in news reports; attackers are in custody on terrorism charges, a temporary legal gag order is in place while the contacts of the two suspected terrorism-related murderers is investigated.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Um not every argument is a Wikipedia acronym. The point here was that murders are generally covered in the news because they are news. In a smaller country like Israel that may mean it is covered in the national news. In a larger country like the United States it may only be covered in the local news (depending on the race of the victim, minority victims generally get less coverage for what I assume is the same reason why we cover a much larger number of Israeli victims of Palestinian violence as opposed to Palestinian victims of Israeli violence despite the numbers showing one of those things being less likely to occur than the other). But you really dont need to respond, everyone already knows what you think about this. Repeating it just makes this more of a pain for somebody to close, which now that I think about it may well be the intention. Much easier to close No consensus if there is too much difficulty reading through the whole discussion I suppose.  nableezy  - 17:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we all know by now that E.M.Gregory relishes filling AfDs with a pack of lies and destroy the chance of a consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As you said to someone a few comments above, please refrain from making personal attacks. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  14:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This can hardly be considered routine when both Shin Bet and the Israeli Ministry are treating the victim as a terror victim. It's not a purely regional story, but one that was syndicated by the AP. The claim that there is no continuing coverage is also erroneous, as although coverage has naturally slowed because of the gag, there is still continuing coverage (e.g. a October 15 Times of Israel piece about the victim being declared a terror victim by the Defence Ministry and Israeli president visiting the victim's family and a October 17 Arutz Sheva piece about a delegation of Arab politicans visiting the family and talking about the impact on the community). This is sufficient to meet WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT, and given the pronouncements by the Israeli government, will only be solidified by the trial, regardless of how that goes.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just want to answer one thing, the AP has stories for EVERYTHING you can imagine. For example, they covered this pumpkin patch raid by a few elementary school kids. We live in an age where everything can be found in the news, but this remains an encyclopedia, not a news repository.  nableezy  - 16:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that AP, being an American based organization, will cover American stories of lower importance/interest more in-depth than if those incidents had occurred in other countries. I doubt that a similarly inconsequential story in Israel would be published by the AP in a similar manner. The AP simply reporting on something also usually doesn't mean that its subscriber papers publish everything the AP publishes, there's some editorial discretion. Here, the AP story was published in the Seattle Times, which is not a regional Israeli newspaper, and is used as an example of a non-Israeli RS that covered this incident. The pumpkin story also seems to fall into the "can you believe how silly this story" type of news that WP:NOTNEWS bars as "routine" as opposed to hard news, like in this story. Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note - continuing coverage today, the 26th, due to a house demolition notice served to the family of an alleged perpetrator . The investigation case itself is still under the standard (of late) 30-day judicial gag - so details are not yet officially published by the Israeli press.Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Week Keep Though current news in itself has no place on Wikipedia it is clear that this event, being around 3 weeks old now, already has already amassed some facts and reactions which have created some notability for the article. It should not perhaps have been created so early and it would have definitely been better to wait as the story unfolds however it seems a waste of community resources (and even wiki server space) to delete an article which has a good chance of becoming notable in the future given the current projectory (terror attack & Netanyahu etc). Overall of course the article should not have been created on the 4th October given the current notability at that point in time was low. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep (changed vote per points made in following comment - this appears to be terrorism) - this is going to be closed as no consensus, but I'm concerned the amount of time that is wasted arguing each side - time that could be better spend fixing articles and other encyclopedia-betterment pursuits. I was asked by the nominator to help craft a policy that would minimize this type of discussion down the road, but demurred because I think that such a policy would suffer the same endless debate fate that these articles do. The current guidelines don't seem to make these AfD discussions easier to settle. So, here are my general thoughts. Most of these controversial articles seem to be related to attacks that are assumed to be terrorism, but a sticking point is that the terrorism is not yet proved. Other variables are number of perpetrators, number of victims and number of fatalities. So here's my decision tree. Excuse my need to be clinical.  An attack by a non-notable individual or small group on another non-notable individual or small group, however shocking and unexpected, is generally not notable if nobody is killed - regardless of whether it is terrorism or just bad blood. If large groups (>10 persons?) are involved and the event attains riot status, then we need to see what media reports come out on the event's societal impact. If there is one or a small number of fatalities, but the attack is ruled to be conflict not related to organized terrorism (street gang fights or organized crime, for example, ethnically motivated or not), it's not  notable. A murder or murders clearly identified as terrorism are notable. With these rough guidelines, this event should be deleted as it is WP:TOOSOON.  It was originally reported as a robbery but is being investigated as terrorism.  Once that issue is clearly determined, the final fate of this article can be decided. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  18:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not initially reported as a robbery - initial reports mentioned a financial dispute could've possibly been the cause - alongside possible terrorism (so - there was doubt as to whether this was a terror attack for the first 1-2 days - but it wasn't reported as something else). It very quickly shifted to a terror case. The victim has already been recognized as a terror victim. The house of an alleged perpetrator is slated for demolition. PM level visits. Arab leader visits. And no - they do not choose to visit everyone. Regarding closed criteria - I don't think we'll get them - it really depend on the conflict. The threshold for Syria/Iraq is obviously higher than, say, London - just because of the frequency and scale of events - only the "really big" stuff in Syria/Iraq gets coverage. However - if so many people feel strongly on this matter in the wiki community (both on the suppression and inclusion of articles) - it's probably an indication it is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I disparage editors who rush to create articles on low-casualty terror attacks - or to delete them - I also know that when I was a newer editor I created such articles. Editors can learn; I hope that User:ThePagesWriter and User:TheGracefulSlick will take note and slow down.  I also want to point out that death tolls are an odd way to gauge notability. We have many articles on failed assassinations (Attempted assassination of Arthur Calwell, attempted bombings (Northwest Airlines Flight 253), and similar. I think gauging notability as per WP:GNG makes more sense than using casualty counts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Any article called failed assassination by definition suggests it's not a run of the mill failed attempted murder. That's not the best example, but I do agree that failed plots (shoe bomber and underwear bombers) can be notable. My guidelines are an attempt to simplify the debate when there's no consensus - borderline events such as this one we're debating here. TimTempleton <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: User:Galatz made the point that the article was created too soon and nominated too soon. I agree it was created too soon and my gut tell me to vote delete in an attempt to discourage such article creation in the future. Per nom, Wikipedia is not news. However, I do not think it really would dissuade anyone and it would be a disservice to User:Galatz who spent time enough to prove notability. Ifnord (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete it is one murder of an individual and has no significance beyond family and local community, fails WP:EFFECT. It may have been picked up in some US news outlets, but that is not a sole reason for declaring the event notable by Wikipedia standards, fails WP:GEOSCOPE. This is mostly a regional occurrence. It is no longer being picked up in the news cycle, and new information coverage seems to have stopped about 20 days ago, fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.


 * Even if it is deemed terrorism, it still has no impact beyond the local region, no demonstrated lasting significance, and no indication of importance. The same story is being regurgitated in a variety of news sources, fails WP:DIVERSE. Breaking news is not necessarily considered notable per Wikipedia standards, per WP:NOTNEWS. Per WP:RECENT, this Wikipedia article has an "inflated [and] imbalanced focus on recent events."
 * This results in an article that is unable to develop "a long-term, historical view." It seems there has been enough time to demonstrate whether or not this topic has significant impact beyond regional concerns. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that coverage has not stopped, the demolition of the house of one of the suspects was carries a few hours ago by Wafa, Palestine News Agency. There is, however, a press gag during which investigaros are releasing no information to the press. Also, if you scroll up to the iVote marked " Keep immediately above your comment, you will see that User:TimTempleton was under a similar misapprehension about terrorism, but after User:Icewhiz's explanation that this has officially been deemed an act of terrorism, changed his iVote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2017 (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.