Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 2010 West Bank 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   merge to 2010 Hamas terror campaign. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

September 2010 West Bank shooting

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

More suitable for wikinews per WP:NOTNEWS; no evidence of lasting notability (since the event occured today). Another similar article by the same creator (June 2010 West Bank shooting) and one by a different creator (June 2010 West Bank shooting) have been deleted at AfD for similar reasons recently.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  22:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Request: Can you please retract or clarify your statement that "other similar articles of the same creator have been deleted at AfD for similar reasons recently"? One similar article of mine, June 2010 West Bank shooting was recently deleted and then relisted following a DRV. I'm not aware of another similar article of mine that was deleted recently. Thanks. (And BTW, how is this at all relevant?) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, the article on the June 2010 West Bank shooting has not been deleted. Rather, was nominated for deletion twice (one AFD, and a review) and each time the article was kept.  Now it has been nominated a third time for deletion.  There are currently  no fewer then 13 terrorism-related articles nominated for deletion.WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism.  No fewer than 7 of them area about Hamas-sponosred terrorist attacks.AMuseo (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, it was deleted, as a result of its first AfD nomination (Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting), and was then restored and relisted at a later date, as information became available later. As I have noted here, the same action is likely to be appropriate here; in a few weeks, it should be much clearer whether or not this subject has the enduring notability required to pass WP:NOTNEWS.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  21:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that it's now been deleted again, in fact.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  09:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. "No evidence of lasting notability"? It happened today. It makes zero sense to nominate an article for deletion the day it is created, especially on NOTNEWS grounds. There is no way of knowing whether the incident will have lasting notability the day it happens. Indeed, as the incidents were intended to derail peace efforts its international ramifications and consequent notability are quite probable.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Probably going to be notable" doesn't cut it, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Clearly the article is notable... for the moment. But per WP:NOTNEWS, it's not appropriate unless there is enduring notability. It's far too soon to determine whether or not there will be enduring notability. Write the article on wikinews and come back when this can be covered in an encyclopaedic fashion.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, you're the one predicting (i.e. crystalballing) and I'm the one telling you not to predict. The incident has clearly received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. You are surmising that the coverage will die down and the story will become unnotable. However, you have no evidence of that. Your entire deletion rationale rests on your crystalballing theory. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 23:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My entire deletion rationale rests on established policy: wikipedia is not a news site, it's not a crystal ball, and an article about a news event needs more than just notability: it needs enduring notability which cannot be established the day that the event occurs.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  07:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * it is impossible to prove enduring notability on the day of the incident just like it is impossible to prove the lack of enduring notability on the day of the incident. I am not trying to prove the former but you are trying to prove the latter. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop misrepresenting my arguments. I am not trying to "prove it won't be notable", nor is that necessary. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, speculation as to whether or not it will be notable in future is not relevant to wikipedia, and a news event which happened today has no evidence of enduring notability, which is a requirement for its inclusion due to WP:NOTNEWS. As I said below, please consider reading and understanding this policy, as you have not addressed the concerns that since this event happened yesterday, it lacks any evidence of enduring notability.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  21:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't make an argument and then insist that I view your argument the way you want to frame it. You are the one making predictions that this incident will not have enduing notability. I am not making any sort of prediction. All I am saying is that at this time it has met the notability requirements of WP:GNG. It may turn out not to be notable and it may turn out to be notable. I don't know and I don't have to predict that it will remain notable. We can ascertain its notability at a later time. One thing we cannot be doing is nominating articles on subjects that have received significant coverage in secondary sources on the day they were created on the premise that they will lose notability.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't have time to read another WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT response ignoring my argument and trying to undermine it by pretending I'm saying something which I'm not; I trust the closing admin to recognise WP:NOTNEWS and the fact that there still has been no counter-argument for WP:NOTNEWS.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, this discussion seems to be going nowhere, with both of us accusing each other of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. I'll let the closing admin adress the strenght of the arguments being made on both sides. I'll let you have the last word below if you like. Best,-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a news story, not an encyclopedia article. These articles belong on Wikinews, not Wikipedia.  nableezy  - 23:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The argument for deletion above is based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which is intended to screen out articles on routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities.  Politically-motivated attacks by armed gunmen who are part of a large, organized campaign of political violence are not routine news.  A WP:CONS has evolved under which individual acts of political terrorism are considered WP:Notable. This attack qualifies for Wikipedia under Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage..  Moreover the attempt to delete this article, but not articles on similar events in Europe and the United States reeks of Systemic bias.   Surely we do not accept the implication that life is cheaper in the Middle East.   Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.   "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)."AMuseo (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no systemic bias; I saw this article, saw that there's as yet no evidence that it will have enduring notability, and rightly suggested (and would have done no matter where the shooting had occured) that per WP:NOTNEWS, it is too early to be made into an encyclopaedic article: it's only just happened. It's perfectly suitable, however, for wikinews. All of the keep arguments I've seen so far are dealing merely with its notability: I have no question that it is currently notable. But the correct application of WP:NOTNEWS is as it states: we consider the enduring notability of news, and that can't be established so soon after the event occured. By all means userfy this article, but it can't be encyclopaedic until its enduring notability has been established.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  07:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep article is backed by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability and has been a subject of continuing media coverage. Alansohn (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Continuing media coverage?!?!? You are aware this happened hours ago, correct?  nableezy  - 02:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is, however, true that new stories pop up at regular intervals on news google, in fact, I can see in my rystal ball that there will be a story in exactly eight days about the baby's brit and his name.AMuseo (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't exist to report what you predict will happen in the future. You can't establish a trend this soon after an event. It is entirely possible that there will be some level of coverage about this for a couple of weeks, and then it'll be out of the news. This should be recreated if and when it is shown to have enduring notability.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  07:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Newsworthy but not historically notable incident. Wikipedia is not your source for breaking news, nor is every shot fired in the interminable Israeli-Palestinian Civil War worthy of an article. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
 * Where is it written that an article must be historically notable to be WP:Notable? I have looked at the guidelines pretty carefully, and events that get wide (national or international) coverage and have some significance beyond a local community (such as a political impact) are WP:notable.  Requiring  "Historically notable" is an original  claim.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Not a speedy delete, need more time to see where this goes. Seems to be part of the recent increased campaign of Arab violence in effort to create a new uprising. --Shuki (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per AMuseo LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS and multiple sections of WP:EVENT, including WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:PERSISTENCE and the depth of coverage section. Articles like this belong on Wikinews, not here. Gatoclass (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a news agency. It fails WP:EVENT, because terrorist attack are regularly reported, just check BBC News Online, Al Jazeera, or Voice of America. How can lasting effects and significance be determine the day of the attack. Lasting significance surely can't be found the day of, but perhaps five, six months after the attack. Look at the sources, they are all news agencies; this is an article best reserved for Wikinews. — Mike moral  ♪♫  05:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If the lasting effect cannot be determined on the day of the attack, why would you call for it to be deleted on the day of the attack? Surely we should err on the safe side and keep the article pending clarification of its lasting effect. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not start the article as a userspace draft or in WP:AFC. My point is these are do not belong on Wikipedia until notability is determined, essentially what policy says. — Mike moral  ♪♫  05:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Most of the keep !votes are referring solely to notability: I suggest reading WP:NOTNEWS carefully and considering whether or not its notability the day after the event is really sufficient for it to be kept.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  07:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS policy, there is zero indication of any "enduring notability" with regard to this event - take it to WikiNews. I also agree with Giftiger wunsch when he points out above that most of the keep !votes are not addressing the reason for this nom. Codf1977 (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable article about something that is nothing more then a news story: WP:NOTNEWS --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2010 Hamas terror campaign, or Keep if there is no consensus to merge. Marokwitz (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to 2010 Hamas terror campaign it is a better idea to have one article, discussing all of these attacks, rather than many different articles, repeating the same thing, this also makes it less like news. Smartse (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS or merge as suggested above. Several people were shot in various US cities today, per press reports,, and those are also the stuff of Wikinews rather than permanent individual encyclopedia articles. Edison (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. More WP:NOTNEWS. There's no reason for rushing to create an article about a minor incident such as this. It would better to wait and see whether the incident acquires enduring notability. Jimmy Pitt   talk  19:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why delete? Why not to 2010 Hamas terror campaign?AMuseo (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to clarify. I believe that this article should be kept per WP:Event.  What I quesiton is the reasoning used by editors who want   to delete it, rather than merge it.  Why do they want the useful, valid information collected here to disappear?AMuseo (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge this and the other recent shooting articles into one article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't need an article for every incident that is news worthy. The incident is already mentioned and placed in context in Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in 2010.--Jmundo (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * note I want to add a practical/mechanical reason for keeping articles like this.  When notable incidents occur, it is easy to write a well-sourced, accurate article.   This is because major newspapers cover the story.   On the other hand, if you wait a few weeks and try to write such an article, it becomes very difficult because the news sources disappear behind walls and you have to "pay per view" for each article.  Most of us don't have unlimited funds.   Therefore, it makes sense to keep well-sourced articles like this.  Looking back in a couple of years after emotions have cooled, notability will be easier to determine. But once the information is deleted, it will be very hard to recreate.AMuseo (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with AMuseo. It does no harm keeping articles like this, especially if they are properly sourced. If, in the fullness of time, the incident fails to meet the 'enduring notability' criterion, it can be deleted, or merged with into a larger article documenting the timeline of terrorist incidents as they relate to whatever conflict -- Israeli/Palestinian, US v pretty-much-anyone, etc -- they are part of.Mtiffany71 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge 2010 Hamas terror campaign WookieInHeat (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2010 Hamas terror campaign (still needs a new title over there). Right now it is not clear if it is emphasizing breaking news but it is fresh enough that I am assuming it is. The article can always be split of the subsection over there grows with ongoing coverage in the future.
 * Side note: See WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE for some related info, AMuseo.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 1 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.