Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beit Rima massacre

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. Merge !votes clearly outnumber Keep. As this is not a vote, the arguments must be weighted according to their strength. Keep supporters presented a number of additional sources, as well as analysis of them. They demonstrated that the article does meet WP:GNG, which was not refuted by the Merge !votes.

Merge supporters had a number of !votes that were WP:PERX with no actual arguments. A few were even "Per X", where X was just "per Y". Some other !votes had invalid rationales, including one that incorrectly claimed there were no secondary sources. Generally, merge supporters did not adequately address the sources presented or analyzed in the discussion. However, they did make a compelling argument that the article failed WP:EVENT. This was partially addressed by Keep supporters, but not fully refuted.

As far as weighing the strength of arguments, on one hand the article passes GNG. WP:EVENT gives additional tests on top of GNG, so it must meet both. As the author of WP:EVENT, I think it probably does barely pass but the arguments that it may fail on lasting effect and persistence of coverage are compelling and were not refuted.

This AFD has been open for nearly a month, though there were issues due to the malformed listing. Another relist seems unlikely to make a consensus materialize. The best way forward is to incorporate the new sources into the article, and a future AFD (if necessary) can determine whether it meets WP:EVENT.

Disclaimer: I had my whole rationale typed up but XFDcloser ate it, so my rewrite might not be as polished. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Rima massacre

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The article fails notability per WP:NOTNEWS (three sources date for the day of the event or the day after), as well as being grossly miscategorized - categories mark it as 1991 while 4 news sources say October 2001. One sentence mention in the Second Intifada article could be sufficient.GreyShark (dibra) 09:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the categories, but this is an obvious keep, and I think you would be wise to withdraw the nomination. B'tselem has a full investigation of what happened, and the Israeli cover up. They have another report that further discusses this. Their overview was "Beit Rima, 24 October 2001 discusses the IDF action in Beit Rima, Ramallah District. IDF troops entered the village to arrest persons suspected of having committed acts against Israel, primarily the suspects in the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze’evi. During the action, Israeli forces killed fi ve members of the Palestinian security forces and wounded six Palestinians, one of them a civilian. The report focuses on some of the human rights violations IDF soldiers committed in the village, among them unlawful shooting, delaying medical treatment, and demolishing houses." Human Rights Watch also has material on the raid and the killing the Palestinians, Haaretz has an indepth review of eyewitness accounts and IDF responses. Now maybe this improperly titled, but it certainly is not NOTNEWS and passes NEVENT easily. Keep. Also this AFD seems malformed, I only came across it by seeing the page in an unrelated search. nableezy - 03:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Second Intifada -- After reading the below and reconsidering the material, I agree that a merge is an excellent AtD. I believe my reasoning here and below remain valid against a standalone article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC) ~~Delete~~ -- If you remove WP:PRIMARYNEWS, there is only one cited RS. This was an horrific event that deserves an encyclopaedic article. The problem is that no one outside Wikipedia has written it; we follow sources, we don't lead them. To pass WP:NEVENT, you need at least some non-primary or academic sources that discuss a lasting WP:EFFECT of this event, and I fail to find WP:PERSISTENCE in the coverage over any reasonable timeframe. Outside of the singular HRA discussion, all cited sources are within a day of the event. Without better sourcing, it does not appear to pass NEVENT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sources I provided above? Notability is about the existence of sources, not the ones currently cited. nableezy - 21:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read each of them before I posted above. The Human Rights Watch is the one that I typo'ed as HRA. The Haaretz articles is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. The two B'tselem reports are closer to what I'd expect, but don't read as either independent or neutral, which I would hope to have in an RS (and both are about a year later, with nothing after that). Even with them and the HRW report, it really doesn't look like this massacre has been even discussed in journals or other academic sources in the intervening 21 years since the B'tselem reports. It seems to have been another horrific footnote to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, much like the individual atrocities in the current war. Without WP:EFFECTS, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:GEOSCOPE, it's hard to defend the article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are saying B'tselem was involved in this then of course they are independent. nableezy - 02:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is the B'tselem report not independent? Mooonswimmer 03:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ~~2023 Hamas attack on Israel~~ Second Intifada as well as with Bani Zeid al-Gharbia. ~~Same reasoning as for WP:Articles for deletion/Ein HaShlosha massacre.~~ Owen× ☎ 20:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is about something that happened in 2001. nableezy - 21:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I was being lazy. Thanks for pointing out my mistake! Owen× ☎ 22:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Israel, and Palestine. gidonb (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Second Intifada; does not satisfactorily pass WP:NEVENT, in my opinion, but it is close, so a merge which includes the higher-quality sources cited above would be best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. no secondary sources. - Altenmann >talk 02:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The B'tselem sources I linked are all secondary and reliable. So is Human Rights Watch, so is Haaretz. nableezy - 02:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources that Nableezy has found above. It's used in a case study and there's been lookback articles on it. If we take those sources in a vacuum, the article is notable. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is extremely unlikely that the nominator performed an adequate WP: BEFORE, since this event is a long-term case study used in sources such as this 2014 Springer-published journal on psychological warfare: "The first major use of this theme came after an IDF raid on the village of Beit Rima north of Jerusalem in October 2001...", in this Brill source, in this 2003 report by HaMoked, etc. The WP:NOTNEWS claim is wholly untenable. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article of a highly controversial raid conducted in response to a major political assassination. In addition to the references already present in the article and those found by Nableezy and Iskandar, a simple search turns up multiple sources (ProQuest 319333583, ProQuest 319337465, ProQuest 425349073 ProQuest 413926692). I'm not sure about massacre being the correct title though, since raid and incursion are also mentioned in these sources, but this is already being discussed on the talk page. Havradim leaf a message 13:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Second Intifada, per those above Zanahary (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm not clear on notability, nor on whether the title of "massacre" is justified.[1] François Robere (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An inappropriate title is not a reason for deletion, and what does "not clear on notability" mean? That appears to be a non-assessment. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The inappropriate title is not a reason for deletion, but it does contrast with the lack of substantiation in the body, which is (see Last1in and AirshipJungleman's comments above). François Robere (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Second Intifada; I agree with Zanahary. EytanMelech (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Second Intifada. This is a relatively minor event and is part of larger events. Eladkarmel (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Second Intifada per Last1in

Justanotherguy54 (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The merger votes being provided here are thin on policy. For starters, the proposed merger target already has 74kB of readable prose, so per WP:TOOBIG is itself a candidate for trimming/splitting, not expansion. On top of this, not a single WP:MERGEREASON has been provided. There were some early merge votes that cast doubt on notability, and subsequent merge votes seem to have merely echoed that despite ample additional sourcing being provided. The latter in turn raises another point: that of the clear WP:NOTMERGE argument that is available based on the additional sourcing - that the material has plenty of room to grow as a standalone topic. So: no particular reason to merge + good reason not to merge. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Am I missing something? This seems to clearly pass GNG and the reports after the attack show a strong case for WP:LASTING. I don't think a merge is a good solution, this is not significant enough as an event in itself for a section in the proposed target, but it does have sources for content and meets GNG so a link in the proposed target to this article seems like the best way to present the material SUMMARYSTYLE.

Source eval from article:

Comments	Source
A full article from the Washington Post, clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (16 full properly written paragraphs)	1. Hockstader, Lee; Williams, Daniel (25 October 2001). "Israelis Kill 6 in Raid on Village". Washington Post.
I have doubts about the NPOV of this source, but it is an WP:IS with WP:SIGCOV, it also is years after the event, showing LASTING.	Defending Human rights in Palestine since 1979.
A full article from the Guardian, clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (19 full properly written paragraphs)	3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Goldenberg, Suzanne (October 25, 2001). "Israel defies US with bloody raid for killers". The Guardian.
A full article from the New York Times, clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (30 full properly written paragraphs)	4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Bennet, James (October 26, 2001). "Israeli Raid Made Village a War Zone". The New York Times – via NYTimes.com.
Didn't bother to look due to the above sources, but this is a RS.	5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Human Rights Watch. Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Authority Territories. 14:2. April 2002. pp. 9-10.
A full article from the New York Times, same author as above but they are different articles (they contain much of the same info), clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (28 full properly written paragraphs), the information that is in this article that is not in #4 above would be considered SIGCOV on its own.	6. ^ Bennet, James (October 25, 2001). "Israelis Storm Village in the West Bank". The New York Times – via NYTimes.com.

Because of the above, I just gave a cursory look at the sources Nableezy presented and they also seem to be WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth even if there are some NPOV questions. The report seems to show LASTING.
We all know NOTNEWS is interpreted and applied very subjectively, editors often disagree in gf, In this case I think the event rises above routine news.
I didn't do a BEFORE because this seems to be a keep based on the above.
I do agree the article should have a better name, the massacre was part of a larger event. I would suggest something along the lines of 2001 raid on Beit Rima, not wedded to any particular phrase, but to meet WP:PRECISE this should be named differently.

Again if I'm missing something, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 06:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although this AFD was opened in November, apparently, it wasn't added to the daily AFD log page so this is the first relisting. Right now, opinion is divided. I'd like to see those advocating Merge respond to the source evaluation and latest arguments in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @TimothyBlue Homerethegreat (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon second revision, perhaps it is actually due and better to merge and therefore I change my vote to merge per arguments above. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Second Intifada as per ~~ AirshipJungleman29. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Second Intifada as per @~~ AirshipJungleman29 and @Oleg Yunakov. Dovidroth (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2023 (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.