Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itamar attack: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:58, 13 March 2011

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 keep, not a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted. -- Y not? 04:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Itamar attack

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

While I find the subject of the article to be regrettable and certainly a sad incident, I fail to see where this specific incident warrants its own article. Strikerforce (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising that you failed to see how this incident warrants its own article, since you nominated it for deletion about five minutes after it was created. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to remain civil. This article documents a current event, but that does not establish notability. There are, unfortunately, terrorist attacks of all kinds almost every day in that part of the world. Without establishing notability for this specific event, the article is a valid AfD candidate. Strikerforce (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please acknowledge that you nominated this article for deletion exactly three minutes after it was first created, that it is still being built, that you did could not have researched its topic in those three minutes to a sufficient extent to reach well-founded conclusions about its notability, that your behavior is blatantly contrary to WP:DEMOLISH, and that your insinuation of incivility on my part is baseless and gratuitous. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of your statement that I will acknowledge as truthful is the speed at which I nominated the article for deletion, which I stand firmly by. This attack, while horrible in nature, is just another in a long list of terrorist incidents in that part of the world. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life there, given all of the conflicts underway. Notability has not been established, in my opinion, hence my nomination for deletion. The tone of your comment ("it's not surprising...") most certainly comes across as being uncivil, sir, if you step back and look at it objectively from my point of view. If you have a problem with my "behavior" (your word, not mine), then there are outlets for that, if you wish to proceed down that avenue. My view on the article was that it was not notable and was a valid AfD candidate. All you had to do was come here and offer a "keep" statement and rationale that the article was still under development and that would have been that. Instead, you chose to respond directly to me in a fashion that could very easily be taken as confrontational. Strikerforce (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support this Deletion as it is one sided and although it was a bad incident but it is encouraging hate of Palestine C. 22468 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wait a day or two and see if the story's impact meets WP:Notability (events).—Biosketch (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TheCuriousGnome (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. If you do not provide any reason for your statement it will not be considered when this debate is closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable news event that has broad coverage in many reliable news sources. Clearly passes WP:Notability (events). Basket of Puppies 00:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a reminder, remember that coverage must occur "over a period of time" in order to be notable under that standard. While emerging coverage since I brought it here to AfD is lending more credibility toward the article's notability status, time will tell whether it holds notability. Strikerforce (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, which is why nominating the article for AfD so soon after its creation kind of defeats the purpose. Had you waited another few days, the argument might have been easier to make. Tomorrow morning the attack will be on the front pages of all the newspapers in Israel (no newspapers printed on Saturday), and Jewish weeklies will cover and analyze it in depth in the days to come. In a week it may be forgotten; but as of this time, there's really no question the article meets WP:GNG.—Biosketch (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the same scale terrorist attack happened in United States or Western Europe, nobody would have ever nominated the article about that attack to be deleted. But, when terror attacks happen in Israel, some believe it is not notable enough because Palestinian terrorists attack Israeli civilians, and in particular children quite often. So one more, one less, who cares, does not deserve a separate article. It is a very wrong approach. Each such attack deserves a separate article no matter in what country it happened. Besides the fact that UN condemned the attack makes it a very notable. As it is well known UN usually condemns Israel, and practically never Palestinian terrorists. The fact that other Palestinians celebrated murder of innocent children speaks volumes. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mbz1 has a point.. had this been an american event we wouldnt have this discussion right now.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also this massacre can have long going consequences for Palestinians. Israel can justify attacks on Gaza or whatever trough this now. Also a Keep reason.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mbz1 - couldn't have said it better myself if I tried. Also, I agree that this was nominated far too quickly. Give it some time to settle in before making that call. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with Mbz1; plenty of terrorist attacks and failed attacks in the west have also been nominated for AFD. I think this is a seriously bad case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, but given the international reaction it has generated (and the coverage that comes with it), it seems to meet general notability criteria, so I'm neutral. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mbz1. Well covered, this event has recently significant responses quickly, including from the UN.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close as SNOW KEEP Basket of Puppies 02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep high profile criminal act widely reported in International media. per WP:N/CA--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Mbz1. Broccolo (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original user's desire to delete was clearly biased. This attack marks a notable escalation in terrorism by the Palestinian Arabs. In a time of political uncertainty in the mideast this will leave a large impact. The only reason more attention hasn't been paid in the media is because of the Japanese tsunami. Please don't insult the memory of the departed by erasing this horrific event due to political motivations.

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.

-- Y not? 04:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closure edit - For the record, my nomination of this article for deletion is not "politically motivated". As a member of a family that only recently (within the last thirty years) came to the U.S. from Israel, I am most certainly sensitive and concerned with the issues facing the region. I consider it rather offensive that the IP contributor (who chose not to sign their comment) would accuse me of "insulting the memory of the departed by erasing this horrific event due to political motivations". Strikerforce (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 *'''Keep''' The original user's desire to delete was clearly biased. This attack marks a notable escalation in terrorism by the Palestinian Arabs. In a time of political uncertainty in the mideast this will leave a large impact. The only reason more attention hasn't been paid in the media is because of the Japanese tsunami. Please don't insult the memory of the departed by erasing this horrific event due to political motivations.
 :''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> -- <b>[[User:Y|Y]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Y|not?]]</b> 04:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
+::'''Post-closure edit''' - For the record, my nomination of this article for deletion is '''not''' "politically motivated". As a member of a family that only recently (within the last thirty years) came to the U.S. from Israel, I am most certainly sensitive and concerned with the issues facing the region. I consider it rather offensive that the IP contributor (who chose not to sign their comment) would accuse me of "insulting the memory of the departed by erasing this horrific event due to political motivations". [[User:Strikerforce|Strikerforce]] ([[User talk:Strikerforce|talk]]) 04:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)