540:- This was not a minor criminal incident which was only covered in a local newspaper for a short period of time - it was a nationalistically motivated terror attack carried out by terrorist organizations aimed at killing innocent Israeli civilians (children!) simply because they were Israelis. The event was widely covered in the Israeli media and the international media. Terrorist attacks with significant national or international press coverage are inherently notable. In addition, it should be noted that this attack and the rest of the terror attacks committed during the last decades had, unfortunately, a lot of influence on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. I really do not understand why anyone might think this is a trivial event. I assume you would have never attempted to argue of an insignificant news event if a similar terror attack would have been carried out by a terrorist organization within the United States or Europe.
752:, basing your entire argument only on the fact that it wasn't an ongoing event in the media. In my opinion, terror attacks which are not widely covered in the media for a long period of time or followed by a wide scale military response also deserve their own articles in Knowledge. This attack received extensive media coverage both in the Israeli media (since you are not from Israel you would not know this) and internationally (check this article for yourself and see that it is based on prominent international sources such as Associated Press, The Telegraph, UPI, MSNBC, BBC News, the Washington Times, and Ma'an News). In any case, does anyone else think that terrorist attacks carried out by terror organizations against innocent civilians, which took place within Europe or the US for example, and with similar amount of national and international media exposure, do not deserve their own articles according to
1027:—While I don't agree that terrorist acts are inherently notable, in other points I agree with Marokwitz entirely. It should be noted that the article does not fail WP:EVENT. It can be argued that it doesn't based on no lasting effect (although that might be because we don't have sources about that—I think it did have a lasting effect, especially in the field of Price Tag attacks). Still, other aspects of WP:EVENT are satisfied, like global coverage and diversity of sources. Overall I don't see a good reason to delete this well-researched article. —
806:, and not for example to promote the deletion of articles about terror attacks with similar media coverage which were carried out against non-Israeli or non-Jewish targets in Europe or the US, might indicate mostly that your main concern here and in general is not really about insufficient media coverage. In any case, since both of our opinions on this subject are well understood to all at this point, I suggest that we wait and see what the rest of the community thinks should be done.
835:, as it does have significant coverage (articles in international media outlets that deal with that specific attack) from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The incident made the headlines for the local media outlets, and also grabbed some headlines in international media outlets. Coverage of the event lasted for far more than a few days, and interest in the story still remained about a month later, as seem from
718:
because it's not my call, it's the sources' call. It's true that the sources might have covered the incident for more than a few days if it had happened elsewhere. But we do not substitute our judgement for the judgment of reliable sources, which have determined that this was not a non-news event. 3. If the attack had significant effects, you should be able to cite sources which substantiate those effects; arguing that it and
609:
with any in-depth coverage regulated to the immediate time range following the event. If you can adduce a pattern relating to ethnicity from that then you have a better mind than I. The pattern in "delete - no more propaganda" and "keep - it would be a crime to delete it" should be much clearer. Finally, to crib a quote from someone I am sure you admire,
212:; no coverage from more than a month after the event (and very little after more than a couple of days), no lasting effects. (We don't even have the tenuous claims to significance based on military or settler retaliation that you find in other non-notable articles.) Every death in this conflict is tragic but not every death in this conflict is
831:- it's a terrorist attack that occured outside a period such as The Second Intifada (although terrorist attacks still occur, they aren't as frequent) and resulted in multiple deaths. Bit surprised that terrorist attacks like these are being singled out for deletion as "not notable." It fits the criteria for notability as listed
482:
485:
878:
All these are not policy-based arguments. Israel's IDF kills, often deliberately if you follow their criteria of who is a child (anyone who is about 12 yrs old) and a terrorist (any child of that age who throws stones at the occupier), 10 times more children than are killed by
Palestinian terrorists.
646:
I dont see any inconsistency in Zero's votes. The two articles are not analogous, one of them deals with more than a child's death. The other is a memorial page. He voted to delete an article that has sources suitable only for a memorial page. He voted to keep an article that has sources dealing with
608:
Zero voted to keep an article that has sources discussing a government cover up of a killing, with sources showing a lasting impact from that event and sources providing in depth coverage of the event over a period of time. He voted to delete an article that was (is) pretty much just a memorial page
396:
That is flat-out untrue. WP:EVENT asks for persistence of coverage or lasting effects, neither of which are present here because it's just a news story like any other out of the region. Why don't you just admit that you want to keep it because you think having more articles on
Israeli children makes
1001:
media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, and I believe in this case it is clearly notable enough to keep. Terrorist attacks with significant national or international press coverage are inherently notable. Coverage by reliable sources is diverse enough to make it notable
939:
Minor event, without major continuing coverage. A few incidental mentions of the photo over several years is not significant. I agree with
Nishidani that this is incompatible with out general line of discussions on these incidents. Whether I agree with what I take to be his implication that this is
843:
media outlets when the perpetrator was caught. The attack was planned for weeks, and is rather significant when you consider that it took place a day after
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu took office, thus being a test for him as well. Indeed, coverage lasted for even more than a month, although
801:
You keep on trying to argue or to hint that the purpose of this article is to discredit any people of Arab ethnicity or Muslim faith (a preposterous claim since acts of extremists can never be attributed to the entire ethnic or religious group to which they belong.) nevertheless, in my opinion,
717:
1. The imaginary guideline you cite about terrorist attacks being notable if they're covered nationally for a day or two or if the victims were children does not actually exist. 2. The argument that I wouldn't be voting to delete if it hadn't happened in the Middle East is a truly foolish one,
887:
this happens often). These likewise are one-off events, they happen so often, and we do not write articles about them, but put them into lists. Terror, devastating infrastructure, shooting at farmers, assaulting them consistently, is part and parcel of settler occupation. We make lists
307:
844:
that isn't necessary to establish notability. As mentioned above as well, the attack is also mentioned in a certain book. Even a United
Nations organization UNISPAL, which is certainly not fond of Israel or even neutral towards the conflict (look at their name)
649:
Yes, I liked the quote too. Good thing it was CC-BY-SA, otherwise I might get in trouble for stealing it. I just wish the author would remind himself of it before implying that my not doing something is some sort of proof of an inconsistent editing pattern.
438:
etc are being consistently wikilawyered by vote-massing and sheer confusion in comments that do not address policy. There is a programmatic creation of such articles that looks, given its patent defiance of policy, distinctly odd.
331:
I've addressed your argument in the deletion rationale by pointing out that WP is not a newspaper and is not bound to cover anything that takes up part of one news cycle, and would appreciate if you explain why you believe that
173:
896:
terror incident on the West Bank. No, the coverage is of the small number of events in which occupying settlers and their children, esp. their children, are killed. It's a POV abuse of the encyclopedia.
782:
if they don't get the coverage WP requires?) are notable is consistent, or whether it somehow disappears when the perpetrators aren't Arab or Muslim, but I think I already know what the answer would be.
963:. There's coverage from various international news orgs such as AP, The Telegraph, UPI, Philadelphia Bulletin, Maan, Media International Group, and pretty much every major Israeli news outlet.
1040:
Clarification, I didn't say that terrorist acts are inherently notable. What I wrote is "Terrorist attacks with significant national or international press coverage are inherently notable"
667:
I was not implying you were being inconsistent. I was implying that because you didn't !vote in both discussions, you are not a good example of someone who !voted in both the same way.
506:
572:
voted to keep an
Israeli victim article and delete a Palestinian victim article). You will not observe that pattern with many editors like myself, Zero, Nableezy and several others.
803:
594:
the
Palestinian victim, while Nableezy didn't !vote on both, you make an excellent point. Or in other words, your (by now quite expected) "we good, them bad" fails as usual.
167:
611:
You can go to my talk page and point out any inconsistencies within what I have actually done rather than what you think I should do if you need to get that off your chest.
128:
647:
a government cover-up, a subsequent investigation, and the fallout from that. I fail to see what inconsistency there is in a set of votes on different types of articles.
257:
502:
237:
277:
879:
It has a sniper policy of a field officer directing snipers to shoot into demonstrators to hit, often fatally, a designated unarmed person who they think
840:
530:
133:
629:
So we're moving from "we have more consistent editing patterns" to "we have better arguments". That's nice, but not exactly what
Nishidani said.
101:
96:
105:
498:
88:
560:
Dead Wrong. The voting patterns in both the al-Mughrabi and Yehuda Shoham article show a distinction. There is no lockstep lineup of
778:
what EVENT and NOTNEWS ask us to do. I'd be very interested in knowing whether your claim that all terrorist attacks (apparently
188:
52:. It's not uncommon for Knowledge guidelines to conflict each other. If many editors from various backgrounds all think that the
397:
Arabs look bad? It would be more honest than citing policies that not only fail to support but that also undermine your !vote. –
792:
749:
735:
526:
406:
345:
225:
155:
60:
policy, then the community's common practice is likely to differ from an out-of-context, literal reading of the latter policy.
17:
748:
You cannot completely disregard the whole terror attack being carried out by terror organizations against innocent civilians,
494:
980:
Many sources of broad spectrum cover this e.g
Associated Press, The Telegraph, UPI, MSNBC, BBC News, the Washington Times.
849:
968:
672:
637:
599:
848:
it in a report in 2010, which I believe demonstrates notability as well. Not the best example, but a May 2009 report in
457:
568:
on another as you find with several editors like User:Crystalfile; User:Exx8; Activism1234; User:Soosim (all of whom
836:
149:
72:(NB. Sorry DGG - I'm closing this against your recommendation despite having attended your lecture at Wikimania.)
1068:
811:
765:
545:
40:
1049:
1031:
1019:
989:
972:
951:
931:
906:
869:
815:
796:
769:
739:
691:
676:
660:
641:
623:
603:
581:
549:
469:
448:
410:
391:
370:
349:
322:
291:
269:
249:
229:
67:
145:
964:
668:
633:
595:
92:
862:
804:
your insistence to promote only the deletion of articles about terror attacks carried out against
Israelis
195:
57:
1064:
985:
774:
Actually, disregarding an event that wasn't ongoing in the media and didn't have any lasting effects is
64:
36:
845:
832:
807:
761:
541:
490:
435:
53:
1045:
1015:
902:
788:
731:
577:
522:
465:
444:
402:
341:
221:
181:
892:
etc.) in adherence to wiki guidelines. I'd believe this was an objective interest if you wrote of
684:
653:
616:
84:
76:
161:
1003:
960:
855:
757:
478:
287:
209:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1063:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
981:
927:
889:
632:
That's an excellent quote, by the way. Someone should publish a book of that guy's sayings.
384:
363:
315:
61:
998:
753:
431:
376:
355:
333:
205:
1041:
1011:
898:
784:
727:
573:
518:
461:
440:
427:
398:
337:
217:
1028:
1007:
947:
919:
265:
245:
388:
367:
319:
303:
283:
122:
481:(notable publisher of reference works and academic journals) in 2010 & 2011:
923:
380:
359:
311:
456:: I've noticed that you were deeply involved in the creation of the article
942:
261:
241:
884:
517:
chapter reprinted in two separate books, and the mentionis trivial. –
460:. Can you explain in what way is the current article less notable ?
1057:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
375:
Moreover it does received significant coverage so it satisfy
681:
I see. Well, then, consider me withdrawn from this AfD.
56:
guideline is more applicable to this situation than the
591:
587:
118:
114:
110:
180:
940:an indication of general bias is another matter.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1071:). No further edits should be made to this page.
726:effect is an argument for a merge, not a keep. –
258:list of Palestine-related deletion discussions
194:
8:
276:Note: This debate has been included in the
256:Note: This debate has been included in the
236:Note: This debate has been included in the
238:list of Israel-related deletion discussions
278:list of Crime-related deletion discussions
275:
255:
235:
586:Except for the fact that Zero !voted to
308:deletion discussion is more then enough
852:uses the event as a picture. Etc. --
477:- Coverage in two books published by
7:
358:why it should be different here?--
24:
354:The consensus was pretty on that
750:just because you do not like it
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
883:a protest over land theft (at
1:
720:all the other attacks like it
280:. 02:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
1050:13:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
1032:16:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
1020:05:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
990:10:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
973:21:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
952:19:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
932:22:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
922:. significant event also.--
907:06:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
870:05:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
816:05:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
797:02:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
770:02:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
740:01:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
692:23:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
677:23:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
661:22:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
642:21:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
624:20:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
604:20:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
582:11:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
550:00:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
531:01:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
507:22:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
470:06:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
458:Death of Khalil al-Mughrabi
449:20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
411:20:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
392:20:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
371:20:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
350:20:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
323:20:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
292:02:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
270:19:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
250:19:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
230:19:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
68:13:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
1088:
1060:Please do not modify it.
495:They think it's all over
302:Significant coverage in
32:Please do not modify it.
590:the Israeli victim and
336:should be suspended. –
306:.As was shown in this
965:No More Mr Nice Guy
669:No More Mr Nice Guy
634:No More Mr Nice Guy
596:No More Mr Nice Guy
85:Bat Ayin ax attack
77:Bat Ayin ax attack
868:
694:
663:
626:
510:
493:comment added by
479:SAGE Publications
294:
281:
272:
252:
1079:
1062:
890:Price tag policy
865:
859:
853:
687:
682:
656:
651:
619:
614:
509:
487:
282:
199:
198:
184:
136:
126:
108:
48:The result was
34:
1087:
1086:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1069:deletion review
1058:
997:. According to
863:
857:
808:TheCuriousGnome
762:TheCuriousGnome
685:
654:
617:
542:TheCuriousGnome
488:
141:
132:
99:
83:
80:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1085:
1083:
1074:
1073:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1035:
1034:
1022:
992:
975:
954:
934:
912:
911:
910:
909:
873:
872:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
743:
742:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
630:
553:
552:
535:
534:
533:
472:
451:
428:User:Roscelese
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
373:
326:
325:
296:
295:
273:
253:
202:
201:
138:
79:
74:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1084:
1072:
1070:
1066:
1061:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1000:
996:
993:
991:
987:
983:
979:
976:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
955:
953:
949:
945:
944:
938:
935:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
914:
913:
908:
904:
900:
895:
891:
886:
882:
877:
876:
875:
874:
871:
867:
866:
861:
860:
851:
847:
842:
841:international
838:
834:
830:
827:
817:
813:
809:
805:
800:
799:
798:
794:
790:
786:
781:
777:
773:
772:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
746:
745:
744:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
716:
715:
714:
713:
693:
689:
688:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
666:
665:
664:
662:
658:
657:
645:
644:
643:
639:
635:
631:
628:
627:
625:
621:
620:
612:
607:
606:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
564:on one page,
563:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
551:
547:
543:
539:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
511:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
486:
483:
480:
476:
473:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
452:
450:
446:
442:
437:
436:WP:NOTABILITY
433:
429:
425:
422:
421:
412:
408:
404:
400:
395:
394:
393:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
372:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
330:
329:
328:
327:
324:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
297:
293:
289:
285:
279:
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
234:
233:
232:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
197:
193:
190:
187:
183:
179:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
147:
144:
143:Find sources:
139:
135:
130:
124:
120:
116:
112:
107:
103:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
81:
78:
75:
73:
70:
69:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1059:
1056:
1024:
994:
977:
956:
941:
936:
915:
893:
880:
856:
854:
828:
779:
775:
723:
719:
683:
652:
648:
615:
610:
569:
565:
561:
537:
514:
513:Er, this is
489:— Preceding
474:
453:
423:
299:
214:encyclopedic
213:
203:
191:
185:
177:
170:
164:
158:
152:
142:
71:
49:
47:
31:
28:
982:Crystalfile
850:Global Post
538:Strong keep
168:free images
1004:WP:DIVERSE
961:WP:DIVERSE
780:especially
758:WP:NOTNEWS
724:cumulative
210:WP:NOTNEWS
54:notability
1065:talk page
1042:Marokwitz
1012:Marokwitz
918:- passes
899:Nishidani
846:mentioned
785:Roscelese
728:Roscelese
574:Nishidani
570:initially
519:Roscelese
462:Marokwitz
441:Nishidani
399:Roscelese
338:Roscelese
284:• Gene93k
218:Roscelese
37:talk page
1067:or in a
1029:Ynhockey
999:WP:CRIME
858:Activism
793:contribs
754:WP:EVENT
736:contribs
686:nableezy
655:nableezy
618:nableezy
613:Thanks.
527:contribs
503:contribs
491:unsigned
432:WP:EVENT
407:contribs
377:WP:EVENT
356:WP:EVENT
346:contribs
334:WP:EVENT
226:contribs
206:WP:EVENT
129:View log
58:not news
39:or in a
837:reports
776:exactly
174:WP refs
162:scholar
102:protect
97:history
1008:WP:GNG
937:Delete
924:BabbaQ
920:WP:GNG
885:Bil'in
722:had a
588:delete
562:delete
426:. Per
424:Delete
381:Shrike
360:Shrike
312:Shrike
204:Fails
146:Google
106:delete
65:yck C.
948:talk
881:leads
389:WP:RX
368:WP:RX
320:WP:RX
304:WP:RS
189:JSTOR
150:books
134:Stats
123:views
115:watch
111:links
16:<
1046:talk
1025:Keep
1016:talk
1006:and
1002:per
995:Keep
986:talk
978:Keep
969:talk
959:per
957:Keep
928:talk
916:Keep
903:talk
864:1234
833:here
829:Keep
812:talk
789:talk
766:talk
732:talk
673:talk
638:talk
600:talk
592:keep
578:talk
566:keep
546:talk
523:talk
499:talk
475:Keep
466:talk
454:Note
445:talk
403:talk
385:talk
364:talk
342:talk
316:talk
300:Keep
288:talk
266:talk
260:. --
246:talk
240:. --
222:talk
182:FENS
156:news
119:logs
93:talk
89:edit
50:keep
1010:.
943:DGG
894:any
839:in
515:one
379:.--
262:BDD
242:BDD
216:. –
196:TWL
131:•
127:– (
62:Der
1048:)
1018:)
988:)
971:)
950:)
930:)
905:)
814:)
795:)
791:⋅
768:)
760:?
738:)
734:⋅
690:-
675:)
659:-
640:)
622:-
602:)
580:)
548:)
529:)
525:⋅
505:)
501:•
484:,
468:)
447:)
434:,
430:.
409:)
405:⋅
387:)/
366:)/
348:)
344:⋅
318:)/
310:--
290:)
268:)
248:)
228:)
224:⋅
176:)
121:|
117:|
113:|
109:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
1044:(
1014:(
984:(
967:(
946:(
926:(
901:(
888:(
810:(
787:(
783:–
764:(
756:/
730:(
671:(
636:(
598:(
576:(
544:(
521:(
497:(
464:(
443:(
401:(
383:(
362:(
340:(
314:(
286:(
264:(
244:(
220:(
208:/
200:)
192:·
186:·
178:·
171:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
148:(
140:(
137:)
125:)
87:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.