Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Jerusalem shooting attack

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 a fundamental disagreement in this thorough discussion, per deletion being qualified as per WP:NOTNEWS versus article qualification per the topic having received ongoing sustained coverage, an indicator of having enduring significance (see WP:EVENTCRIT for more information). Both viewpoints have been asserted and debated by several users, as have some other matters. Some of the rationales for retention are based upon the topic meeting the General notability guideline, but do not address WP:NOTNEWS concerns, the latter of which carries more weight regarding Wikipedia articles as part of the What Wikipedia is not policy page. The conferring of less weight to keep rationales that do not address WP:NOTNEWS concerns is necessary herein, and as such, no consensus for a particular action has occurred. Ideas and concerns about the article, such as its content and the potential for a merge and/or redirect to another article, can continue to be discussed on the article's talk page. North America1000 05:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Jerusalem shooting attack

[edit]
2016 Jerusalem shooting attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. There's been an unfortunate habit of creating an article for every news event involving violence, at least every event involving violence against Israelis, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This should be merged to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016 unless some sustained coverage, which requires time, can be shown Nableezy 23:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 23:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 23:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of reason is that? Zerotalk 00:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason(ing) is this: Since the administrator who closes this discussion is almost certain to ignore all rules (and not in a WP:IAR sort of way, because that policy requires as a condition the improvement of Wikipedia) and close it as keep based on a nose-count, it doesn't matter that I cite policy that says this alleged article is a Wiki-abomination. I might as well vote with the majority. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to this logic we should delete half of the articles about events in Wikipedia.Many articles rely solely on contemporary news articles of those events.I don't mind the mind the cleanup but it should be uniform. Till that this article should stay--Shrike (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Umm no. If you dont get the logic feel free to ask, but try not to misrepresent it. K thnx. nableezy - 14:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was meant for Malik.I fixed the indent--Shrike (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is your routine. And please note, WP:NOT is a Wikipedia policy. WP:GNG is a guideline. A violation of WP:NOT cannot be addressed by an assertion that it satisfies a guideline. nableezy - 03:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously. Apart from the ongoing defiance of policy, E. M. Gregory's attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ethnic exclusive version of Yad Vashem fails here, because the details on the incident in the new article are already far more comprehensively covered in the specialist article dedicated to this violence List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016 (See October 9), which is maintained by myself and User:Bolter21, so both POVs are respected and both editors take pains to ensure the other side's story is duly covered. Thus this is sheer POV-pushing reduplication when not el cheapo forays into quick separate article compilation that looks great on a wiki CV. Please note that in the latter article, all incidents of violence by both sides are set out in chronological context, not according to an ethnocentric bias according to which violence undertaken by Israel is insignificant on wikipedia whereas Palestinian violence must be given intensive coverage. Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This personal attack is inappropriate. It is also inaccurate. I create articles on events in many parts of the world. The articles I create on the murder of Jews are in no way different from the articles I create on terrorist murders of other peoples, such as 2014 Tours police station stabbing, 2014 Kabul restaurant bombing, or 2016 Brussels stabbing. I fail to understand the accsusation that creating well-sourced articles is an "ongoing defiance of policy." As for Nishdani's assertion that creating articles on attacks by Islamist terrorists that target Jews is an "attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ethnic exclusive version of Yad Vashem," it is not only inaccurate; it is foul. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as part of my deletionist approach to non-prominant terrorist attacks, this attack is not prominant, and has a place in Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–present). It doesn't need an article. There is no encyclopedic value to this attack. You can't justify this attack with other articles about attacks in France or Belgium and I do not deny the fact some of those attacks (in Europe and the US) doesn't really need an article but it doesn't matter right now. Amos Harel and Ron Ben Yishai both said that this attack might have copycats, but apart from four days of rioting (after a year of rioting) in Jerusalem, nothing really happened. As we already have an article, talking about the phase of violance in which this incident occured, and generally speaking it was forgotten less than a week after, just like most of the attacks, it has no significance.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is somewhat unusual on Wikipedia to maintain a list of events that do not have stand-alone articles. Whereas it is standard policy for articles that, as editors have stated above, pass WP:GNG, to have stand-alone articles, often linked from multiple lists. You, Nishcdani and Nom appear to be arguing for special standards to be applied exclusively to attacks on Jews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, Bolter, I and the nominator are anti-Semites. Some might believe that innuendo, but Bolter21 is definitely not a self-hating Jew. This is a policy issue, and ethnic discrimination has nothing to do with it. I don't jump at the numerous opportunities afforded by events to make up cheapo articles on Palestinian victims of Israeli violence. Distaste for the abuse of wiki to such ends, as well as wiki policies on notability (read correctly for durability) explain it- nothing else.As for it being somewhat unusual ìto maintain a list of events that do not have stand-alone articles', um,uh, . .Lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, they are documented, despite almost never causing any casualities, minutely. No one has succumbed to the temptation to create Lists of Israeli rocket and artillery attacks on the Gaza Strip, which are just as numerous.Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT put words in my mouth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I DO NOT NEED TO. I construed correctly your last remark:'You, Nishcdani and Nom appear to be arguing for special standards to be applied exclusively to attacks on Jews.'Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trust that editors new to this page will judge the content and notability on the merits, evaluating notability as per policy, based on the available sourcing and the extent and depth of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I trust that, without much confidence, that new editors will read closely WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:RECENTISM, if only because they have an archaeological value as ancient history and have long ceased to be applied to articles like this.Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again genius, Wikipedia policy trumps a guideline. If this article violates WP:NOTNEWS, and it does, it should be deleted. The end. And you make one more accusation of antisemitism I will seek sanctions against you. That type of cowardly argument might work elsewhere, but Im not having it. nableezy - 14:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I urge you to re-read WP:NOTNEWS, which encourages editors to crate "to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events", while discouraging articles on routine events, like sports announcements, presumably because ideologically-motivated terror attacks always continue to be discussed. I have, for this reason, recently created articles about events like the 2014 Kabul restaurant bombing, which should have had an article in 2014. Indeed, my very first edit [3] was about a terror bombing that I wanted to know some reliable details about even though it happened in 1906. Now I suggest that since both of you are merely repeating your own arguments, you put down the WP:BLUDGEONS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Significant current events. There is an ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. This is routine in that context. Finally, Ive seen you cite WP:BLUDGEON a number of times, and ironically every single time you have done so youve done it AfD in which you had both the most volume and largest number of comments. So please, try to be a bit more self-aware. Because citing something when it is critical of your exact behavior only makes you look, well to be blunt, foolish. Oh hey, look leading the pack once more (excuse my edits adding this page to delsort lists). nableezy - 16:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, come on. Your hostile attitude is just so unnecessary. You use insults to make your point come across. It makes all your reasonings invalid. Grow up man.BabbaQ (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying a policy trumps a guideline is neither hostile or invalid. Finishing a comment on insults with an insult is, well, is irony the right word here? nableezy - 05:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just one passing glance at the article, for eyes accustomed to this area, will tell you that this is an article russled up by (a) consistent distortion of sources (b) POV-spinning by consistently leaving out information not conducive to the image the editor who made it wants to concoct. I'm busy on other things but here are just a few examples from a random check. It is clear that the man in question committed an act of terrorism, that does not exculpate wiki editors from giving a comprehensive and neutral account of him, and what he did.
  • The attack was unusual in Israel’ (The attack did not take place in israel)
  • Yossi Melman is misspelt
  • Melman writes:'The attack is under a gag order and Melman says it is not yet known whether or not he was a member of Hamas.'
Notwithstanding this, you ignored it to highlight the meme replication from quick wire services that he is a Hamas operative. We don't know.
You've suppressed all context amply given in the sources you cite:Melman mentions that context:’bearing in mind the intensified, poisonous atmosphere, the lack of diplomatic progress, the expansion of the settlements and the weakening of the Palestinian Authority president.’
  • The background of the man is given in the Ma'an article: we give it on the list, you suppressed it. There are zero details on his background.
  • Sources state one of the casualties was a Palestinian from Hebron. You don't mention this. Palestinians aren't significant victims in this mad internecine conflict.
  • The terrorist was known as the ‘Lion of Al-Aqsa/Jerusaslem’ among Palestinian residents in Silwan, not by Hamas, as you put it over. He won this monicker for his activism in defending Palestinian rights to the Al-Aqsa mosque. Not mentioned. Instead we have this local epithet credited to Hamas ‘Hamas claimed credit for the killings, hailing Hamas member Musbah Abu Sbaih, and describing him as a man known as the "Lion of Al Aqsa’.
  • 'The terrorist published a “will” in which he called on Muslims to act to protect the mosque.' Not mentioned.
  • ’The Hamas militant group stopped short of claiming responsibility for the attack.’(New York Times(Associated Press) is paraphrased as Hamas claimed credit for the killings.
  • His ‘long police record' is detailed here. That phrase was circulated from an Israeli policed report. No source mentions anything other than (a) a conviction for alleged assault of a policeman, (b) 4 months imprisonment for something he posted on Facebook. You use the police press handout ('suspected terrorist for years', no charge ever brought), and ignore the details, which paint a different picture.
I've never seen any of the article in this area you create faithfully reflect the full content of sources. You give a caricature of selective details, and then wait for someone else, if anyone notices, to fix the travesty, while posting intensely in defense of them as you wrote them.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBC: "The militant Islamist group Hamas praised the attack and said the gunman, Musbah Abu Sbaih, was one of its members."[4]. And in the AP/Washington Post story to which it was sourced in the article. Please check your facts before you accuse fellow editors of failing to do so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One of the most annoying drawbacks of the English wikipedia is that AfDs like this one will always end democratically. While a "no consensus" means the article will remain, in reality "no consensus" should determine that the article will be deleted, becuase just like there is no consensus to delete it, there is no consensus to have it. This article does not pass the WP:GNG test, in one spesific point, "independence". This subject does not stand alone, it is just one of the minor escalations since January 2016, in the "Intifada of Invdividuals". Sadly, it seems most of the people who decided to Keep, didn't really talk about the incident within the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but only about the technical sourcing of the article. Malik Shabazz's comment is weird, because he explain his reason to Keep the article with explaination for deleting it.. Bachcell's comment fail to mention the independence of this incident from the Intifada of Individuals, which clrealy it doesn't. Shrike mentioned two analysis articles but they do not give this article more significance - one of the analysis talked about the ambigues gig order and the other said the attack might spark a new uprising - which it didn't. To E.M. Gregory's comment about WP:GNG I"ve already responded above. A not even complete line-comment was made by BabbaQ and Xyzspaniel, which saddens me. So in conclusion, looking at this discussion, there are more arguments against the article, but more "hit and run" comments in support of it, with no regard to the actual subject the article talks about: The Intifada of Individuals, as part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
To all the people I"ve mentioned here, please, for the sake of not making this yet another democratic vote, please either revert or change your vote according to the above, or explain to me, why is this incident so special in the Intifada of Individuals, that occured in Israel and the PT for the last 12 months, that it requires an article and not a paragraph in the subject's article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit, no he is not. And kindly read that yourself. You mentioned BLUDGEON several times in an AFD that saw you have 40+% of edits by count and total size. Again, repeating an admonition that you are a textbook case of is foolish, and thats being kind. nableezy - 18:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, using words like BS and foolish, towards another user just makes you look bad. Nothing else.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im not all that concerned with what you think looks bad. EM Gregory is making an odious argument, one not based on any fact, with an insinuation of antisemitism. That is in fact bullshit, as in trivial, insincere, or untruthful talk or writing; nonsense. nableezy - 19:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But you do care. Otherwise you would not respond. Or continue to use words only for reactions. It is the way it is, good luck with that. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not even a little. Like to the entire comment. Not even a little. nableezy - 23:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it more annoying that users like Bolter21 is argumentative against anyone who does not support his view in an AfD. An AfD is made to reach an overall consensus on an article, not to get to an agreement that delete is the best option. No consensus should not mean that the article is deleted. Quite opposite it is really good that no consensus leads to Keep, so that any concerns can be worked on. It is just pointless to argue or make demands like Bolter21 is doing. It makes his own rationales weaker. BabbaQ (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bolter21 has a POV diametrically opposed to mine. One thing you can be assured of: if we agree, it will be based on rational discussion and policy, not automatic siding with one side or another. Most of those who write keep invariably on such articles - I only know you from I/P AdFs- just turn up, write keep, wave a policy flag and disappear. People who work hard in this area, and Bolter is among the best, both contribute to article construction and listen. Intelligent objections have been made, and people keep saying keep without an intelligible policy at hand. That is why Shabazz's irony is justified. The only rationale for keep for such pathetic articles is that policy is ignored consistently. We know the outcome, but insist that retention means mechanical consensus from those who do not read the sources will trump policy. Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless to argue? Are you for real? You are presented with strong arguments here, yet you refuse to discuss it. When you have a majority of votes, but you refuse to discuss them, you are exaclty exploiting the Tyranny of the majority, because you are confident enough in the number of votes in support of your view point, so you have no interest in spending your time, when you can manipulate the system to work for you, dispite the fact, Wikipedia is NOT a WP:DEMOCRACY, based on the rule of the majority, and therefore I urge you to be challenged by the arguments presented to you by me and the people who argued aganinst the article, and not simply say "meh its your problem" when asked to do so. If you are unwilling to discuss, confident in the fact there is a numeral majority to your position, you shouln't comment in the first place.
This manipulation is very common, when the "majority" side looses interest in argueing, saying things like "there is no point in argueing, we have a consensus". If you will simply refuse to argue, there will be no consensus, and the article, which according to some, violates wiki policies will stay, and it is the unethical thing to do.
Just answer to my question: Can you explain the significane of this incident in the "Intifada of Individuals"? If not, the articles does not pass WP:GNG and should be deleted.
And this whole comment I make, is becuase of the previous destructive results of democracy in Wikipedia, sometimes changing facts with no source, and then defended by people who claim that because there is or isn't a consensus, a reliable source can't be used, and that the consensus/lack there of, is the ruling, dispite the obvious violation of Wikipedia's policy.
I really don't care about this article, it is just a principal. I am sick of seeing democracy ruling here. If you can't answer to the arguments challenging your opinion, your opinion is invalid in this AfD. I am an Israeli citizen, I have no interest in whitewashing the terrorism that effects my country for the last 90 years, so the allegations of anti-semitism, or your allegations that I am "trying new tactics" because people don't agree with me, are quite absurd.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care about this article - OMG man, then why are you assuming bad faith and keep on bickering at any Keep !vote. Your opinions are invalid in this discussion per your comment above and your overall argumentative stand.--18:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)BabbaQ (talk)
The rest of your response is just unintelligible rambling.. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article should always exist when there is too much information for a simple list entry. Having a list entry should only justify deleting an article if that article only repeats information already in a list. Otherwise the effect is to destroy useful information about an incident for which there is international interest. Bachcell (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC). (I have moved this new comment down the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Bachcell. This article has less information that the one Bolter21 wrote for the other page. The difference is only that Gregory adds the usual responses sections, which no one ever reads, and are devoid of interest, insight or information that throws light on the incident.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Nishidani, tell us how you really feel :D Come one, strawman.. strawman.--

BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do us the courtesy of focusing on policy arguments please, for once. This is not an opinion poll.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do me the courtesy and stop using this AfD as an opinion poll then.. if it is like you say. Because from what I can see the only ones that are using this AfD as an opinion poll more than a AfD is you and a few others. Just keeping it real.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If notability is determined by number of deaths, this article should be deleted. There were two incidents since June in which one person died. Now two people died, doesn't make it more significant. Gregory, answer the damn question, why is this incident independent outside of the still ongoing Intifada of Individuals?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the fact that shootings in Israel are not as common as in the US, is notable enough. We have mall shootings in the US and articles for that, that we have one or two articles about shootings in Israel shows that it is not a violation of NOTNEWS but it's a notable event and the expanded article clearly passes the keep threshold. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 19:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this is not about 'shootings in Israel', a misimpression both you and Gregory are laboring under. Most shootings occur in East Jerusalem or the occupied territories, beyond Israel's borders, and the majority are (see the casualty lists) undertaken by the IDF and Israeli border guards.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respond to Nishdani, Bolter21. As I just explained at another AFD, We do not decide what's notable based on arguments from principle, rather, we follow the sources. If multiple, major, national and international new sources cover a shooting in ways that meet WP:GNG, and major political analysts and news commentators discuss it in depth, it is deemed WP:NOTABLE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pr nom. (..and though it obviously fails the usual criteria for notability, I agree with the above sentiments that "the usual suspects" will all vote keep....so it is unlikely to that an admin will actually follow policy and delete it. Sigh. Big Sigh.) Huldra (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's argument was that it should be kept only if "some sustained coverage, which requires time, can be shown" And even the most cursory search [ shows that it has been covered continuously since it occurred [6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is entirely proper to improve, expand article during AFD. And to notify editors her when WP:HEYMANN has been performed in ways that meet objections raised, such as my recent edits demonstrating impact (arrests) and ongoing coverage coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When people tell you the article does not pass WP:GNG, it doesn't matter how much you will expand the aritlce. Answer to the question already, why is this incident so special in the subject of the Intifada of Individuals?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size was not that big. There was no major impact at all. We are 10 days after and nothing happend. The size is not big, there are attacks like this one everyday globaly, and even if in Israel it is rarer, it does not make it notable. The sustained coverege doesn't make it independent. There was recently a collapse at a building site and searches were conducted for three days, in the aftermath 4 people died, two of the foreign nationals and there were people pointing fingers at politicians and organizations, yet it is not noteable, it is not an "event" in history, just like this incident. It is not an event, it "just another" one.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've waited for this attack to have some impact that distinguishes it from many other small incidents and it hasn't happened. No lasting impact = no article. It really is that simple. Also add WP:EVENT to the list of policy&guideline pages which are relevant. If this article is kept, one year from now the majority of Google hits for this event will be Wikipedia derivatives. Zerotalk 23:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is the second time on this page that a shooting which occurred outside Israel's borders, in East Jerusalem, has been described as in Israel. You must have read my correction, EMG. Could you just strike that out: everyone knows it is not true.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another instance of you making things up. Are you at all aware of how many shootings a day there are in the United States? You think we have articles on them? And once again, there is an ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. We dont have an article on each roadside bombing during the Iraq War either. We do have a a list for each year though. Please stop lying about other editors, thank you. nableezy - 20:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ammunition Hill is also in East Jerusalem. nableezy - 19:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to acquaint yourself with the fact that Israel rules this area as sovereign territory, and that it is in a different legal category than the disputed West Bank, and different again from territory under the control of the Palestinian Authority.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus christ, you said it was not in East Jerusalem. You said there are no light rail stations in East Jerusalem. You said there is a separation barrier in Jerusalem. All of those things are flat out wrong. The only person that has written the words Palestinian Authority up to this point on this page, with one minor unrelated mention, is you. You apparently have no idea what you are talking about, and with that I'm done. nableezy - 02:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is territory where Israel claims sovereignty, and rules as a sovereign state.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors who may be unaware of the reality that this attack like the entire track of the Jerusalem Light Rail are in West Jerusalem, NOT in East Jerusalem. It is on tool place in a central Jerusalem neighborhood on the Israeli side of the separation barrier. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Sheikh Jarrah is in East Jeruslaem. So is Pisgat Ze'ev. And there is no "separation barrier" in Jerusalem. Do you know anything at all about this topic? If so, why are you saying blatantly false things? If not, why are you saying things of which you have no knowledge? Please do not continue making completely false assertions that anybody with even a little bit of knowledge of the topic area can quickly see are wrong, intentionally (aka a lie) or otherwise. Thank you. nableezy - 19:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The attack took place at the Ammunition Hill light rail station in central Jerusalem. NOT in territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)
lol, that was a response to the entire track of the Jerusalem Light Rail are (sic) in West Jerusalem which is blatantly incorrect. There are, as best I can tell, 9 light rail stations in East Jerusalem. And Ammunition Hill is also in East Jeruslam, part of the occupied Palestinian territories and not "in Israel". That really is not relevant, but you should try to acquaint yourself with the topic a bit. nableezy - 19:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that one impact of this very recent terror attack is the arrest of Palestinians for celebrating this attack, including the perp's daughter and "Soccer Coach Arrested After Posing With Banner Supporting Jerusalem Gunman" [[7]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The arrest of Palestinians" is not a significant impact, given the fact some 8,000 were arrested last year.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. This incident can be revisited in a year or so to see whether it meets Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Inclusion_criteria, as can any of the many incidents of violence between Israelis and Palestinians in the various 'List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict' articles. A good Wikipedian would be willing to wait until there is actual evidence of lasting effects. I wasn't going to vote but I was persuaded to do so by E.M.Gregory's behavior, which I think is counterproductive. If the article is to be kept there is some background information on the shooter in [8]. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
lol, youve added Arutz Sheva all over the place, but Maan is not a reliable source? Thats been settled at RS/N, sorry to say for you, and it is indeed a reliable source. But to the point, since you love repeating this, try reading it. WP:BLUDGEON. You currently have 23% of the edits by size on this page and a whopping 27% of the edits by count. So, please, instead of citing WP:BLUDGEON to others completely unaware of how you are a textbook case of it, try reading it. nableezy - 19:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an RS. If it were not, I would not have provided it. Not only is it an RS, it's an RS that could enhance the breadth and depth of the article for readers. There is nothing unusual about Israelis and Palestinians shooting and killing each other. One of the reasons WP:NOTNEWS policy should be strictly enforced on ARBPIA articles like this, articles about incidents of violence where insufficient time has passed to allow a proper assessment of compliance with Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Inclusion_criteria, is that they attract editors who don't even try "to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict." Sean.hoyland - talk 16:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can see most of those !voting Delete gives a IDONTLIKEIT rationale. All from "pr nom." and then just copying a rambling text about how those who are !voting keep can not be right simply because !voting Keep is wrong without any reasoning for that stance. To lasting impact on an incident happened recently, do you own a magical ball to see in to the future with?. To rationales such as WP:NOTNEWS and that the coverage is routine? Routine? Of course an attack of this kind gets coverage. It is very weak... weak.BabbaQ (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2016_Jerusalem_shooting_attack&oldid=1097788525"