Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 2010 Gaza naval shooting


 * 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.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  16:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

September 2010 Gaza naval shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete, Non notable article about a news story: WP:NOTNEWS. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as news story with no historic importance. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
 * Delete as article is news story. Just another shooting in a conflict area. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  05:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please stop nominating articles for deletion the second they are posted; it is ridiculous and tendentious editing. There is no way of knowing if the incident is just a regular news story like dog bites man or a naval incident with international ramifications if the article is not allowed to develop. Indeed, common sense tells us that it will most likely be the latter. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 14:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, every breaking news story should be allowed to have an article launched and allowed to develop over a protracted period of time because most breaking news will have lasting historical significance if the article on the story is sufficiently developed? I think that's what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong. I respectfully disagree strongly on every point... Wikipedia is NOT a source for summarization of breaking news stories, articles on every news story should NOT be allowed to be established and to loiter about, and most news stories have NO lasting historical importance. —Carrite, Sept. 27, 2010.
 * You are correct regarding most news stories, but this is not "dog-bites-man." This fatal naval incident will most likely have international repercussions that effect the Middle East peace process, and I don't understand how anyone remotely knowledgeable in current events, much less anyone that reads the sources in the article, fails to realize that and runs to either nominate or vote for its deletion withing 5 minutes of the article's creation.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Why rush to create the article? Why not wait and see whether it develops into something more than a short-lived news story and then write the article? Wikipedia will still be here next week, next month ... Breaking news doesn't belong here merely on the strength of your assessment of its long-term significance. Jimmy Pitt   talk  17:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes more sense to create the article right away as to develop it properly. The fact that Wikipedia will be here in the future is an argument for waiting till then to see whether it can develop into a valid article, not to have it deleted now. Finally it does not belong because of my assessment, rather it belongs here due its significant coverage in secondary sources. Its the assessment of others, crystalballing that this incident will wind up to be unnotable, that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You wrote above: "This fatal naval incident will most likely have international repercussions..." That is clear use of the crystal ball. So far, it has had no such repercussions; the settlements issue is a far more serious obstacle and this minor naval incident has already dropped off the news radar. Jimmy Pitt   talk  21:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The opinion was supplemental to my policy based rationale that it should be kept because it meets Wikipedia's general notability requirements. If anyone is crystalballing, it is those that are arguing that this will eventually turn out not to be a notable event. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As opposed to the policy-based rationale that it's a news story, which is supported by the fact that a mere four days after the event nothing new is being reported. Jimmy Pitt   talk  08:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats the thing, you're making your deletion rationales on the day of the incident, then using 4 days as evidence to your rationale. Wikipedia is not a paper, does not have a deadline, so it makes more sense to rationalize deletes after viewing the incident in a proper context. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 12:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. It is unclear whether or not this will turn out to be notable enough to meet WP:EVENT guidelines, but I would support closing it for now and revisiting this in another month or so. Linda Olive (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for now, without prejudice for later recreation. It's sad to say, but this kind of incident in that region of the world is actually about as significant as "dog-bites-man". If it eventually proves to have a more lasting or wide-reaching impact, then we can address it later, though this is probably most comfortably merged somewhere else (not sure where, though). However, as it stands, this is just WP:NOTNEWS, and assuming that it's more than just a blip on the violence radar is WP:CRYSTAL.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - things are not assumed to be notable, it needs to already be a notable event for the article to exist. Saying that it may one day be notable so we should keep the article is a ridiculous thing to say. As of now, this is a news story with not one piece of evidence that it has any lasting significance.  nableezy  - 14:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am leaning towards a procedural keep for now.  The nomination is by an editor known well for biting newbies, and this is a choice example.  However, it may ultimately be deleted per Bahamut0013 as, pardon the pun, dog bites man.  You folks decide, but let's keep this debate open for a while. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "known well for biting newbies" ??? When? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm the creator and sole contributor of this article, and I'm not a newbie. I know how the system works, and I was aware that there was a good chance this article would get nominated for AfD. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not inclined to be swayed by an argument based on ad hominem. A good faith nom or not does not detract from the merits of the article's continued entry in the encyclopedia.  bahamut0013  words deeds 00:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - no further analysis or effect indicates this is just news. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies; now I see this. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:N--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - again, no evidence of lasting historical significance per WP:NOTNEWS. Gatoclass (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable per WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are fish to fry in the Middle East, but this is not one of them. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 17:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT - this appears to be an unimportant minor incident Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 4 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.