Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh attack (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:33, 15 August 2017

2017 Yavneh attack

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS Article about stabbing attack with 1 injury. Received minor international media attention. Suggesting it to be merged into the 2017 Temple Mount crisis article.JBergsma1 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous AfD did not format and can be found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh attack. Pinging Nom User:JBergsma1 and TheGracefulSlick. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge and redirect - To list of terrorist incidents in August 2017 instead. This is an obvious case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE so the fact we are discussing the possibility of preserving any information is generous. This was a minor incident that, while terribly unfortunate, does not necessitate an article and a WP:RAPID check ("don't rush to create articles") could have saved us a lot of time. In the unlikelihood that this establishes a WP:LASTing impact -- not just "there will be a trial" or "but it's labeled terror" -- then maybe this can re-evaluated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galatz's argument has convinced me to wait longer for further confirmation that this subject is unnotable. Unfortunately, I also believe the nomination rationale had a few shortcoming and swayed voters to look the other way this time. I'll observe this unnotable incident and revisit it in, say, two months when no major coverage or impact can be established, and WP:RAPID cannot be used as an excuse to keep it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close WP:NPASR A merge suggestion is outside the remit of AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: JBergsma1 was merely offering an alternative for !voters. He does outline a deletion rationale in his opening statement, and a merge can be decided at AfD if there is a consensus for it. If you need dozens of examples of AfDs where the outcome was "merge and redirect", I can happily supply them. Perhaps you could contribute to this AfD discussion instead of requesting an immediate closure with no progress being made?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP stated, "Suggesting it be merged..." That is not a "deletion rationale". I am adding WP:NPASR to my !vote in case the OP agrees with you that a deletion was intended. The OP was advised before posting here that "discussion guidelines" are available, so I suggest that the next nomination he/she take advantage of the community's advice. Unscintillating (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick, Unscintillating I made this nomination when I wasn't aware yet of the possibility to nominate an article for merging, but in my opinion this article still fits the AfD as it is WP:NOTNEWS and received minor coverage as a whole. With my suggestion to merge, I wanted to say that the article either should be deleted or should be merged. I didn't put it down there, so that's my mistake.JBergsma1 (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand now that the NOTNEWS was intended as a deletion argument, and the merge as an ATD. I withdraw. Unscintillating (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (regardless of the procedural issues raised by Unscintillating) - there are plenty of sources for this attack which was filmed and widely circulated. Additional coverage following Prime Minister's visit to wounded victim. Still more expected coverage from future trial.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: is your standard for inclusion really that low that you ignore the lack of WP:DIVERSE international coverage, lack of a WP:LASTING impact, lack of coverage outside a regular news cycle, and the trivial mention of the prime minister? If your WP:CRYSTALBALL argument for "expected" (expected according to who -- you?) future coverage of a trial is the best you have, (see WP:ROUTINE) then I strongly recommend you strike your !vote, and create a more thoughtful response in tune with our guidelines, not your own.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is, of cource, nowhere written that to pass WP:NCRIME an article must have international coverage (although this stabbing attack was covered internationally). What is written is WP:GEOSCOPE: " Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article." i.e., national coverage can suffice to meet GEOSCOPE - and does routinely suffice with WP:NCRIME articles; although, of course, additional indici of notability are also needed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With an 11 day old event - some crystalballing is required. This is a case where waiting - both for article creation and article deletion is warranted. This isn't a trivial mention of the PM - but rather a bedside visit. Coverage of this event was wide in the Israeli news cycle (and the PM visit extended this over the initial coverage, as did the video) and this also got international mentions. At the current level of coverage it passed WP:NCRIME for an 11 day old event. Just because the victim was Israeli is not a reason to set a lower bar for deletion. If I were to vote on this event 6 months hence - my position might change based on the coverage the event receives then.19:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the coverage I see in Hebrew - [1], and this is English - [2]. We even have a mention in Aug 12 following a different stabbing attack. This level of coverage certainly qualifies for NCRIME for an 11 day old event.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: I ask that you do not cast aspirations. I never said anything about "lowering the bar" because the victim was Israeli. Do not try to muddy the waters with that shit; there is simply no place for that if you care at all about civil discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't directed at you specifically, I apologize if this was taken so. It is my belief (based on participation in AFD discussions in I/P and non-I/P events) that I/P NCRIME events (and possibly other active conflicts) are more likely to be face merge/redirect/deletion discussions. It is my belief that notability should be applied per the level of coverage regardless of where this occurs.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of terrorist incidents in August 2017. The article fails to establish notability outside of the fact that it took place. No lasting significance or long-term societal impact from this isolated attack. Best covered in an existing list article; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:LASTING it is too early to judge what future coverage will be and the nomination is based purely on speculation that it wont be covered. This article was nominated too quickly per WP:RAPID. - Galatz ^Talk 13:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also WP:CRYSTAL? you're assuming future coverage will occur. LibStar (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This 12 day old event has been received several spurts of coverage in the past 12 days. It hasn't been a single newcycle item. The videos, the fighting back, the extremely critical injury and recovery, politician attention, etc. - has brought this a bit beyond the "normal" attacks. This is the problem with bringing an event that is only a few days old to AFD - you end up judging it by the coverage up until the point.Icewhiz (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: I believe you should read my comments below when I clarified this further. I mentioned view two of WP:DEADLINE, where since there is potential for it that its too soon. In 6 months I might feel differently but right now I dont.

Keep - Per WP:RAPID --Shrike (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Galatz and Shrike and isn't it also wrong to speculate that there will be future sources? We do not wait for subjects to be notable: they either are or are not. Besides, there is nothing WP:RAPID about this; coverage died after two days and the article can easily be recreated from the editing history in the unlikely event it deserves a standalone article. WP:ROUTINE coverage of a trial -- if there is coverage that is -- will not change that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think its premature it say that it died. If you look at Murder of Shelly Dadon you will see that there are huge gaps in the coverage as well, but as the trials move forward it resurfaces. A month after the murder it was gone from the news, but it was back in the news later. I would personally have not created this article yet, but once it is created I think its too premature to delete it.

Additionally WP:RAPID certainly applies as points directly to WP:DEADLINE (I know an essay not a policy, but its what the policy refers to) which states in view two "We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established." Are you telling me that we cannot point to its POTENTIAL significance? That is why it is premature to delete this article until time has proven that there is no potential for significance. And as I said before I would not have created it due to view one, but once it is created, I fall into view two, and feel WP:RAPID applies. - Galatz ^Talk 14:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perp in custody and victim recovering in hospital; it requires no WP:CRYSTALBALL to see that coverage will continue. Furthermore, well-sourced articles on ideologically-motivated terrorist attacks on civilians in peacetime are routinely kept at Wikipedia: 2017 Notre Dame attack, Louvre machete attack, 2016 Ohio machete attack, 2016 Minto stabbing attack, 2017 Bishop International Airport incident, 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, and other, similar attacks in which perp failed to murder his victims. I think that editors arguing delete need to explain why they are judging attacks in Israel by different standards than similar attacks in the U.S., France, Australia, and Britain - many of which were not brought to AFD at all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: a quick glance will show no one has argued deletion. This is the second time you have inferred I and others have different standards for Isaerli victims. I ask you to provide diffs to support these claims or redact that portion of the comment as it is a personal attack.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I made no personal attack on you. As for your other point, er... this is an AfD discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that Slick consistently takes the position that many terrorist attacks in Western countries are minor and should be deleted. One typical Slick comment here: [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a random aside, I do believe there is that feeling on WP. Not saying this discussion fits into that or not, and not accusing anyone of it, just as a statement of fact. For example, the one case that I always remember for the is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Tel Aviv shooting because that was the rationale for nominating. - Galatz ^Talk 19:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page should probably be moved to 2017 Yavne attack attack, consistent with the spelling on Yavne - Galatz ^Talk 13:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so I

Moved to 2017 Yavne attack

I left a redirect just so everything is clear, those can be deleted later if we feel that Yavne with a "h" is not a viable search term. I also added a Find Sources template above with the correct spelling. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 :* {{ping|E.M.Gregory}} a quick glance will show no one has argued deletion. This is the second time you have inferred I and others have different standards for Isaerli victims. I ask you to provide diffs to support these claims or redact that portion of the comment as it is a personal attack.[[User:TheGracefulSlick|TheGracefulSlick]] ([[User talk:TheGracefulSlick|talk]]) 19:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 ::*Nonsense.  I made no personal attack on you.  As for your other point, er... this is an AfD discussion.[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 19:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
+:::*'''Note''', however, that Slick consistently takes the position that many terrorist attacks in Western countries are minor and should be deleted.  One typical Slick comment here:  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Bishop_International_Airport_incident&diff=787022956&oldid=787020183].[[User:E.M.Gregory|E.M.Gregory]] ([[User talk:E.M.Gregory|talk]]) 20:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 ::::Just as a random aside, I do believe there is that feeling on WP. Not saying this discussion fits into that or not, and not accusing anyone of it, just as a statement of fact. For example, the one case that I always remember for the is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Tel Aviv shooting]] because that was the rationale for nominating. - '''''[[User:Galatz|<span style="color: #000080">Galatz</span>]][[User_talk:Galatz|<span style="color: #FF0000"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]]''''' 19:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' The page should probably be moved to [[2017 Yavne attack]] attack, consistent with the spelling on [[Yavne]] - '''''[[User:Galatz|<span style="color: #000080">Galatz</span>]][[User_talk:Galatz|<span style="color: #FF0000"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]]''''' 13:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)