Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:23, 30 September 2010

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. The DRV closer was right... this did produce another difficult to parse discussion. At the core, this debate is about whether NOTNEWS or EVENT controls this article. NOTNEWS, however, is a policy, higher ranking than EVENT. Also, teh allegations of canvasing, and the very real evidence of it provided on one side, do render that side's numerical presence here less impressive. All in all, consensus to delete. Courcelles 04:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010 West Bank shooting

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

Nominating per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13, primary concern involves WP:NOTNEWS. Procedural nomination only, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 10 of the 11 sources used in this article are news stories from the day of the event. The other source focuses on another similar event a month later and mentions this shooting in passing. This is a news story, and as Wikipedia is not the news this does not belong on Wikipedia. Countless news stories can be used as sources for countless news events, that does not make those news events worthy of inclusion as a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. nableezy - 03:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy makes a false argument. The question of whether this event has received ongoing attention in the weeks since the attack may be relevant. And, in fact, the attention has been ongoing. The argument that the sources in the article are "news stories from the day of the event" is a false argument since such sources exist, but have not been added to the article. I am now adding them.AMuseo (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can demonstrate what false argument I have made I expect you to withdraw that line. What I wrote is demonstrably true. You adding references that discuss another event and mention this one in passing does not in any way change the validity of my argument. nableezy - 00:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion debates are about the notability of the event, not teh quality of the article. Your argument that the article should be deleted merely because it is (was) sourced to the week of the attack was false on two counts. First, because addressing the quality of the article rather than the notability of the event is a false argument, Second because it is false to argue, as you did, that the notability was fleeting on the gorunds that the articles were all form the day of the event when numerous sources form later dates exist.AMuseo (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting something does not magically make it true. WP:N is a guideline to help determine whether or not an article should exist on a topic. WP:NOT is a policy that says what does not belong on Wikipedia. The "sources" you added are either a. unreliable, or b. make only fleeting mentions of this event. None of them demonstrate any sustaining notability of this event. At the time I wrote my comment I was 100% accurate and continuing to say that the argument I made was "false" does you no favors. This article fails WP:NOT and as such should be deleted. I understand the tactic of attempting to make an AFD so confusing for a potential closer by posting arguments so that the conveniant choice for a closer is "no consensus" so I dont plan on responding to any more of your comments, but if you continue to assert that I have made a "false" argument without demonstrating exactly what was false with my argument I will be taking this to another venue. nableezy - 00:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS and User:nableezy above.--Kudpung (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. 124.207.81.2 (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing more then a news story: WP:NOTNEWS --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just the same as AfD #1 which unfortunately was brought to DRV for "I disagree with the result" reasons". This is WP:NOTNEWS|news]], this is not a significant or historic event. Maybe it's a sad commentary on the state of world affairs that such attacks are considered almost routine news, but that's the way it is. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle to prop up importance of one's personal causes and interests. Elevating this event to an article does exactly that. If appropriate, reuse/recycle some of the sources in a larger article on Israeli-Palestine conflicts. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NOT NEWS. -- Y not? 16:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Every source is within one week of the incident except one, where is only a passing mention. It may be newsworthy, but not notable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As coverage of a news event with no lasting historical importance. This was run through AfD with a DELETE result earlier this month, appealed to Deletion Review and restored, and round and round we go... AfD had it right the first time... Carrite (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NOT NEWS. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW JeremyMcClean (Talk) 20:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the arguments above are flawed since they depend on an assertion that WP is NOT NEWS. In fact, the WP:NN policy specifically refers to routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities The apppropirate standard to judge this event is WP:EVENT, which this terror attack passes easily since it received wide international coverage and since a terror attack is intrinsically notable.AMuseo (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also proof by assertion. nableezy - 00:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This incident received another round of international coverage when it was discussed in almost every article about the August 2010 West Bank shooting.AMuseo (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EVENT as an event with persisting widespread coverage in reliable, independent sources. Here are a few such sources from the three months since the event to start off with: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The article shouldn't be deleted until a couple of simple questions are answered:

Since all the substantiated delete votes in this discussion so far are based on the assumption that all the sources covering the event are from the day of the event, and since it takes about a minute to see that this assumption is false, did those editors spend that minute? If so, why did they stick with the false assumption? If not, why did they vote in an AfD without doing the most elementary relevant research?
Most of the deletion advocates so far have simply voted, with a WP:VAGUEWAVE to WP:NOTNEWS. Is simply noting the existence of a policy without any attempt to show its applicability considered a contribution to an AfD discussion? Can an article be deleted based on such votes? Can any article be deleted based on such votes? If the answers to the last two questions are "yes" and "no", where is the limit?

Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My "assumption" was not an assumption. I wrote that 10 of the 11 sources in the article are from the day of the event, and the last is a brief mention on passing. Not only is that not an assumption, it is something that can be easily proven thanks to the magic of the internets. Of the sources you gave now four of them are from the day (or day after) of an arrest (I bet you will be able to find a set of news articles from the day a trial starts, if there is a trial of course, which isn't a certainty or even likely in these cases). Every murder in the city of Chicago, of which there are hundreds yearly, has a set of news stories when it occurs, a set of news stories when there is an arrest, a set of news stories when a trial begins, and a set of news stories when a verdict is reached. Each of those murders however remain news stories not suitable for encyclopedia articles about them. This "event" is a footnote in an article, it is not an article. nableezy - 01:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia isn't news, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict receives 10,000 more times the attention than any other war. Any incident could very well lead to its own wikipedia article. Terrorist attacks are notable and this was a blatant act of terror committed by an internationally-recognized terrorist organization. Compare a non-casualty car bomb ATTEMPT to successful acts of terrorism against civilians as was the case here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above two rationales. NOTNEWS does not apply to events reported internationally. Seriously--go read what it says. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, where does it say that - it says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews" - I don't see anywhere where it excludes internationally reported events. Codf1977 (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Political and military shootings in Palestine are notable - clearly, such a topic will receive many hits by those researching the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The article is well-referenced. Claims of WP:NOTNEWS are inappropriate - this article is not about a relatively trivial criminal homicide on the streets of New York, this shooting is directly related to an on-going political conflict that (for whatever reason) has the attention of a substantial part of the world. BlueRobe (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS, unless we are going to have separate articles on every Palestinian attack, and every Israeli retaliation, from the last 10 years or more - not to mention an article for every U.S. drone strike in Pakistan, every suicide bombing in Iraq, and so on. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT and Jclemens. --Shuki (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities for which NOTNEWS was intended. As anyone somewhat informed of world events know, these types of incidents have international ramifications, as attested by the multitude of coverage these types of incidents receive.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments for deletion above are based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which in intended to scene 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.[6] This attack qualifies for Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage.[7]. Moreover the attempt to delete this article, but not articles on similar events in Europe and the United States reeks of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Surely we do not accept the implication that life is cheaper in the Middle East.[8] Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. [9] "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). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..."AMuseo (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment:::: I see a strong, recent tendency to propose articles about incidents of terrorism that take place in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Gaza and the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority for deletion, while articles about incidents of violent terrorism or even about minor, failed terror plots in Europe and in the US, Canada, Australia and Britain are not proposed for deletion, or were not until someone followed a comparison that I made between the treatment of terrorism in the Near East and the treatment the article on the 2010 Newry car bombing to that page and proposed it for deletion. My larger point is that there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of articles about individual incidents of terrorism outside the Near East. They are rarely proposed for deletion, not even the poorly sourced articles about very minor plots and incidents such as the 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot I will just mention a few, all of which, including the 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot and the 2010 Newry car bombing appear notable to me. Wikipedia, after all, "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). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." We have articles on the [[ Los Angeles Times bombing, 1973 New York City bomb plot, 2001 shoe bomb plot, 1991 Toronto bomb plot, Wood Green ricin plot, 2004 financial buildings plot, 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, 2002 white supremacist terror plot, 2005 Sydney terrorism plot, 2006 German train bombing plot, 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, 2007 London car bombs, 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting, 2010 Pentagon shooting, 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing, March 6, 2008 Times Square bombing], Wall Street bombing, Preparedness Day Bombing, Bombing of the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation Temple, 2009 Bronx terrorism plot, Alleged 2007 bomb plot in Copenhagen, Bomb plot against the Thomas Jefferson Cultural Center, Columbus Shopping Mall bombing plot, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack, Connetquot High School Plot, 22 May 2008 Exeter bombing, 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack, Holsworthy Barracks terror plot, Hudson River bomb plot, 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot, 2000 millennium attack plots, New York City landmark bomb plot, 2009 New York Subway and United Kingdom Plot, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting. I could go on. Truly. There are many hundreds of articles on individual acts of terrorism, or individual terror plots no more, but no less, notable than these. What I do not see is the grounds on which to argue that these and the hundreds of article like them belong on Wikipedia, while the 19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks do not. Or that the [[10]] or the 2010 Pentagon shooting were notable, while the June 2010 West Bank shooting is not.AMuseo (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty TL;DR there for an WP:OTHERCRAP argument. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists clearly states that the question of which other articles exist can be usefully considered in AFD debates: "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."AMuseo (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you didn't do that, you just provided an indiscriminate list per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

This article fails 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) 05:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASSING FROM PRO ISRAELI BLOG TO THIS AFD: [11] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting blog. thanks for the pointer. I particularly enjoyed the article about self-described Nazis editing on the wikipedia article about Hitler to protect the page from "anti-fascist progaganda." so outrageous it's funny. However, what's your point? That if a Wikipedia article is mentioned on a blog we should ....what...? If you see a bunch of sockpuppets or new users turn up, we could ignore their votes. But, I fail to see what exactly you want us to do about the fact that some blog links to this debate.AMuseo (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not "some blog", but a pro-Israeli blog run by a blocked user who has said that "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." [12] and "I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site." [13] Examples of his blog posts being carried out right after he blogs: Syrian American [14], right after an IP carried out the same change as was talked about at the blog:[15] and another blog post about Oldest synagogues in Israel [16] right after a user carried out the same change as was talked about at the blog:[17].--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets to the point where new, non-autoconfirmed accounts are posting votes, and not !votes, I'd say we should have this particular AfD semi'd for the sake of integrity. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with that. Note, the consensus would roughly be the same, if not exactly the same, had this afd been semi'd from the start.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the WP:NOTNEWS policy, no indication of any lasting "enduring notability", may be worth listing in list of terrorist attacks in 2010 but absent some reliable independent significant coverage outside just reporting on the attack then it's place is in wikinews not here. Codf1977 (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Codf1977, Did you mean to ask for something like the Recent Reuters article [18] in which Human Rights Watch cites this attack in its demand that Hamas cease attacks on civilians? Or perhaps this Wall Street Journal article [19] in which this attack is used to assess the operational capacities and rivalries of militant Arab factions operating in the West Bank? The article has other recent (this month) articles that cite this attack in meaningful ways. You could read the article.AMuseo (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the Reuters article before my !vote and the WSJ one is new to me, however neither of them is what you could call significant coverage of the event, they are mentions along side other events, so still think that my recommendation regarding worth listing in list of terrorist attacks still stands. Codf1977 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EVENT. This is an event of a national scope with lasting effects. WP:NOTNEWS is a prohibition against routine coverage, and this is not routine. Linda Olive (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You assert that "This is an event of a national scope with lasting effects." - have you anything to back this up by way of ref's ? I think that you are misinterpreting the wording of WP:NOTNEWS, it says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." and as of this point, there has not been any ref's to show that. Codf1977 (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of history now and more than just news. Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above, do you have any ref's to support that assertion ? Codf1977 (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The provided refs are sufficient. They span the 3 months since it happened indicating its importance has endured. Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although wikipedia isn't news, I can see that this is an event, and is notable. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 21:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per which part of WP:EVENT? Smartse (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JClemens and the editors he cites. Guidelines like WP:EVENT represent the community consensus as to how the often-mentioned WP:NOTNEWS policy is to be applied. To read the two as being in conflict is to reject the established community consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:EVENT as far as I can tell - "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." I can't see ant indication of this having "enduring significance" from reading the article. Some !keeps have suggested because it received international coverage it is notable per WP:EVENT, this is not the case it says they are "very likely to be notable" if they have "widespread (national or international) impact" - impact is not the same as coverage and no mention of an international impact is mentioned. Smartse (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, for this shooting's impact on the Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in 2010, which has been considerable, as the article makes clear.AMuseo (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Smartse. 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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Systemic bias I cannot help but perceive that there is an element of Wikipedia:Systemic bias at work when articles about terror attacks in the Middle East are nominated for deletion as soon as they are written, while, for example, 2010 European terror plot is not nominated for AFD.AMuseo (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep properly sourced, wide ranging coverage, seems notable. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2010 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was    '''delete'''. The DRV closer was right... this did produce another difficult to parse discussion.  At the core, this debate is about whether NOTNEWS or EVENT controls this article.  NOTNEWS, however, is a policy, higher ranking than EVENT.  Also, teh allegations of canvasing, and the very real evidence of it provided on one side, do render that side's numerical presence here less impressive.  All in all, consensus to delete. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 04:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 ===[[June 2010 West Bank shooting]]===
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}}
 <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting}}</ul></div>
 :{{la|June 2010 West Bank shooting}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting (2nd nomination)|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 23#{{anchorencode:June 2010 West Bank shooting}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting (2nd nomination)}}|2=AfD statistics}})
@@ Line 68: / Line 74: @@
 :[[Wikipedia:Systemic bias]] I cannot help but perceive that there is an element of [[Wikipedia:Systemic bias]] at work when articles about terror attacks in the Middle East are nominated for deletion as soon as they are written, while, for example, [[2010 European terror plot]] is not nominated for AFD.[[User:AMuseo|AMuseo]] ([[User talk:AMuseo|talk]]) 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' properly sourced, wide ranging coverage, seems notable. [[User:WookieInHeat|WookieInHeat]] ([[User talk:WookieInHeat|talk]]) 02:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>