Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:27, 21 April 2017

2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing

2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing (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)

Article about a recent stabbing. No indication that it will receive WP:SUSTAINED coverage or have any enduring encyclopedic value. Likely fails WP:EVENT, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:PERSISTENCE.- MrX 20:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC) - MrX 20:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Note to closer: if you choose delete, please remember to delete the edit notice. El_C 23:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. - MrX 20:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. - MrX 20:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• keep this is a terror attack receiving significant coverage in international media- bbc nyt, reutets, cnn, etc etc. Also local. Seeing the 2017 st petersburg metro bombing has an entry, there is reason to treat this terror event differently. The article itself is well sourced and well written. Probably both the article and the afd should've waited a few days.Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Note, as I said on the article's talk page, that many editors who work on Israel-related articles on are observing the Passover holiday, which continues through Wednesday, and are not editing at present. As are many Israeli journalists. I suggested there that we should wait to hold this discussion until the country returns from holiday.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as per usual. by this I mean that it has become normal to keep articles about terrorist attacks because they generate substantive international coverage, as is the case here.( cf. 2017 Paris machete attack, 2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers, etc.) Nom gives a WP:CRYSTAL argument for deletion, but, Note that in fact terrorist attacks tend to be revisited and referenced going forward, in this case, it is likely to be part of the growing attention being paid to suicide by soldier, in which, as Shin Bet is suggesting here, an already suicidal perp commits a terrorist attack in order to achieve a socially approved, even lauded, death. Note also, as I have argued before at AFD, that it is far easier to create articles on these incidents soon after they occur - and sources are available without access to paywalled archives - rather than to hope that someone goes back years later to create an article when an incident like the 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack or the 1996 Paris Métro bombing comes back into the news.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Merge Some content to Jerusalem Light Rail as per the discussion ongoing at Talk:2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing#Proposed merge with Jerusalem Light Rail. I see no reason this particular incident is more notable than any other unfortunate murder. AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: Stick a knife in this one, it's done. I think it's time we reevaluate the notability of terrorist attacks in general, since this is one AFD too many for such articles. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• The article fails WP:NOTNEWS and, by definition, WP:LASTING, but those policies are dead and never applied anyway. I'll note three things. First, there is already a page List_of_violent_incidents_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict,_2017, which deals with violent incidents of all kinds. Of those, only some incidents are given wide coverage and people create articles on them, but that situation is so normal that it's not even worth talking about. Second: the motives of the attacker are not totally clear; he seems to be mentally unstable and had a history of sexual abuse. Lastly, technically the creator of this page shouldn't be creating pages at all in this area, since they don't meet WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. The latter is not too important; I'm sure someone else would have created the page if not for them. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Just imagine how stupid would it be to actually have this attack as a stand-alone article in a written encyclopedia. This attack hasn't yet generated any significant outcome. It is only that a foreign resident was killed, so obviously some British newspapers and other international sources would care. I also don't see a reason for this incident to be recorded on the rail's article, especially not in more than one sentence. The community should start having a consensus to start articles on recent terror attacks rather than having a consensus to remove them, we always have someone starting an article and then thanks to democracy, which is not the way of Misplaced Pages, we end up with countless articles about incidents that usually generate news reports because the media likes to support terrorism by popularizing it and enjoy ad revenue. The only reason for this article and other simmilar articles to exist is that there is "major news coverege" on that matter, but that's not enough to justify a Misplaced Pages article.

If we look at the article we have and remove the section headlines, it really looks like no other than a news article:

Per WP:LASTING, this article is also too early, though I strongly believe it won't have any significant impact with encyclopedic value in the future. The attack didn't generate any big controversy, there isn't a big, complicated story here, there was no real response, millitary, legal or whatever, that followed this attack, only shock and grief.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment no comment on whether the event is notable or not, but per E.M.Gregory's comment I think the discussion should be put on hold until more experienced editors from Israel get to comment on the issue. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Content decisions can and should be determined by consensus of all editors, not a special group of editors.- MrX 13:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

AfDs are supposed to run for a week, so they will have plenty of time anyway. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, which is still a policy (or so I've been told) and policies trump guidelines (or so I've been told). — MShabazz /_Stalk 14:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Kееp WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here is not "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities".Its meets WP:CRIME as "high-profile criminal act" and WP:DIVERSE--Shrike (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Shrike, please read the full policy of the pages you adduce, for instance the advice on that policy page to refrain from creating articles on the strength of breaking news. It's just below the section you cite.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I read it.But you maybe missed WP:RAPID--Shrike (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Per arguments made by Shrike, and others.Juneau Mike (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. This will be, as usual, voted in. The policies are clear, and it is in violation of them all, and none cited here have any other function than to give the impression this has something to do with policy. The only principle governing these articles is that any act of lethal violence undertaken by a Palestinian against a non-Palestinian has encyclopedic value. It's a form of politics on Misplaced Pages that survives by inattention to the clear evidence of our guidelines. Shrike for example reverts out this as non violent from thelist, an episode widely reported as causing a sick Palestinian child's death by deliberate medical neglect because they could not extort from him information about his neighbours (here,here,here here, here,here, here etc.) The incident is widely reported. This cannot even be listed as as form of extortionate violence leading to a death. One could, as is being done in this article, compose an article on the case and hope it would not be deleted. No. Responsible editors refrain from that because, however tragic, indeed evil, the incident may have been, it fails wiki criteria for notability, as does most of the daily thuggery in that area, which is best left to lists. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Isn't there a list this can go on? There doesn't seem to be enough to say about it to warrant an independent page, and I don't forsee significant additions being made to the content in the future. There is the same problem in some articles about terror attacks in Turkey where there isn't enough to say to meet notability guidelines, just a one-day news event. Fortunately Wikiproject Israel has a couple of pretty comprehensive lists this data could be added to. The category Kurdistan Workers' Party attacks has 6 articles. Palestinian terrorism has 169 pages and an additional 7 subcategories. Agree, "The only principle governing these articles is that any act of lethal violence undertaken by a Palestinian against a non-Palestinian has encyclopedic value" Seraphim System 13:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note that In fact, when sources exist to support notability, we add incidents to a list AND keep the article, cf. Zürich Islamic center shooting, 2017 Paris machete attack, etc.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Response I don't think a one day news event constitutes sources to support notability. If in the future this attack is studied in further secondary sources, and becomes significant in terrorism studies for any number of reasons editors have listed above (including policy changes, military action, or some other widely covered social significance like the gay pride stabbing) - then it could be added. Maybe it's too soon, but not every stabbing in every city in every country of the world meets notability guidelines only because it was covered briefly in news sources. Seraphim System 14:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• delete per excellent arguments by Bolter, Nishidani and Seraphim. --NSH001 (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Note that news coverage is ongoing, and will undoubtedly continue through the trial; it always does. Today's headline: "Palestinian awaits mental evaluation after stabbing, killing British woman, ..E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  In other words, there is also a WP:BLPCRIME issue Seraphim System 18:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Sadly, since international coverage has been very similar, the sole difference between this and such recent AfD debates about stabbing attacks such as Munich knife attack, Reutlingen knife attack, 2016 Würzburg train attack, 2016 Ohio machete attack, 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, 2016 Charleroi attack, 2017 Paris machete attack 2016 Russell Square stabbing is the insistence by wikipedia editors that attacks by Palestinians should receive special treatment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. You specialize in these silly articles, that can be summed up in any one of our numerous lists in 3-4 lines. I like many other editors could make several articles a month on similar things occurring to Palestinians - for every Israeli killed by this violence, several Palestinians are shot in very dubious circumstances, many in violation of Israel's obligations as a belligerent occupant of their land - but there is a general agreement among several of us that we should not imitate the POV pushing bad practice being used to promote unilaterally an Israel-the-victim-of-Palestinian terrorism mentality on Misplaced Pages. As long as drifting editors unfamiliar with this state of defiance of clear protocols continue to lazily vote instead of examining the merits, this crap will stay in, and consolidate wiki's repute for its WP:systemic bias in the I/P area.Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This article helps demonstrate a clear concern on what's happening abroad. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Meaning everything should have an article on Misplaced Pages. If you are familiar with policy (WP:AGF), you should be familiar with WP:NOTNEWS. Not one remark by those promoting this 'stuff' seriously addresses that issue, and the detailed policy guidelines regarding what is of long-term encyclopedic interest, and what is just a blip in a news cycle. Get out of the toxic I/P mental framework of battling to promote a POV, and apply the reasoning used here, and you would get a wiki article on this, this, this,this,this, this, etc.etc. The only reason this is covered is that it is the Middle east conflict and involves an Arab Palestinian. All the other incidents occur in the US, and everywhere else in the world every day, and do not rate as articles. That is what WP:Systemic bias is all about. It's quite disgraceful, but worse, a deliberate abuse of wiki space to push a POV.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• "This is covered" because of the massive internationl news coverage, the same reason why we have: Munich knife attack, Reutlingen knife attack, 2016 Würzburg train attack, 2016 Ohio machete attack, 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, 2016 Charleroi attack, 2017 Paris machete attack 2016 Russell Square stabbing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. What you are saying is that an attack by a known Arab militant, or a personal suspected of being motivated by ISIS gets coverage (I'm fine with that), therefore any attack by any Arab on a non-Arab must get coverage, even if he's a suicidal psychiatric patient, though we do not give coverage to any of the daily knifings by Americans, Italians (3 every week recently), English 'ordinary people', etc. The conceptual distinction is clear, and wiki excludes the latter.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Those who write these articles on Arabs never write articles like

US airstrike on Al Jinnah mosque bombing, 45 civilians (Syria) (2017)

US Boz bombing of 33 Afghani civilians (2016)

US aistrike kills 33 Afghani civilians at Azizabad (2008)

10 Yemeni civilians killed in US airstrike 2017

From the perspective of those massacred (these events occur regularly once or twice a month, and have done so for over a decade) such attacks out of the blue are seen as we see the terrorist attacks we make articles on. In this Misplaced Pages is not global, but angloamericocentric, reflecting its own news and political interests. Anù the selectivity is quite deliberate, to promote a victimized by Arabs mentalityNishidani (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith. and refrain form personal attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages guidelines are that we follow the sources. Sources exist to support this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Because I do assume good faith, let me refer you once again to WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS - most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion - if you are writing on human shields and looking up citations from 10 years ago as research for your topic, most likely that is appropriate. If your peer-reviewed or specialist secondary sources cite news articles for a particular issue, most likely it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you are posting an article that is entirely about a single news story, which is not covered by any significant scholarship outside news reports, most likely, that is not appropriate. Seraphim System 21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• The mere existence of sources does not necessitate the creation of an independent article. WP:Notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.- MrX 21:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Intense coverage supports keeping the article; the British press has been all over this story. As do the precedents I list above. WP:RAPID also applies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Per Bolter et al. I bet this one will be going to Deletion review. In the future, for best results, wait until thing has blown over before XFDing it. Easier. L3X1 (distant write) 21:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - An unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable but, for the most part, it doesn't work the other way around. Experienced editors need to have common sense about notability; independent news coverage immediately after the event does not make this notable. Stabbings happen (sadly) on the regular but they do not become articles. This is what policies are for people, come on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. I argued for its inclusion in List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017, but not every such news story deserves its own article. El_C 23:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki to WikiNews per Bolter21's reasoning, without prejudice against creation of a Misplaced Pages article should WP:LASTING effects occur. There's really nothing here beyond a summary of the events and the condemnations by various dignitaries. As it is, it's a bit awkward that this was created and nominated on the day of the event, as it's too soon to tell if it will fulfill LASTING, but considering the frequency of terrorist incidents that happen in the Middle East, I'm leaning towards no. Daß Wölf 00:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep and institute clear guideline to ban wikiwashing campaigns and that obvious acts of terrorism are always notable, and not covered by the NOT NEWs which is always brought out everytime there is a terrorist attack. There should be an article on the increasing trend to stage terrorist attacks as "routine" crimes by mentally unstable people which appears to be a common and deliberate tactic of clandestine warfare. It is absurd to claim that even if the Israeli government declares an act of terrorism, it should not be covered as an act of terrorism by wikipedia. "unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable " In fact, the opposite should be true, when in Israel, every attack by an arab on a non-Arab is instantly recognized as a terrorist attack, elsewhere in the world, every similar attack when there is no other obvious motive should be recognized as a possible terrorist attack, instead of being instantly deleted as "routine news". Many terrorist sprees such as Ali Muhammad Brown killing two gay men and a student and the D. C. sniper attacks started out as "routine" murders with absolutely no evidence suggesting a terrorist motive. Indeed in the case of Shooting of Robert Godwin, if this was an arab killing a Jews in Israel, there would be no doubt as to motive, yet in the United States, no source suggests any possibility of a political motive when it is always an obvious possibility. Bachcell (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Bachel just curious how do you conclude this is an "obvious" act of terrorism when even the very article your voting to keep and current news sources state it is a possible act of terror? This is one of the reasons why Misplaced Pages is not a news source: editors tend to assume things that are not verified yet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

While we are pontificating on the lacunae of law, how did you arrive at the conclusion that motive is an element of a crime? You must be confusing motive with intent, and there is significant doubt, not only in the United States, but also in Israel, as to how this line of jurisprudence should develop. If you are talking of terrorism as a specific intent crime, it may not be what you were hoping for. While I support discussing current scholarship and legal developments about this on the relevant pages, we need to be sensitive to the BLPCRIME restriction in ongoing criminal cases. Seraphim System 19:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

El_C made a good point here regarding his confessed motivation. The problem is he contradicted himself in other reports (Ynet) by saying:'(I)"didn't mean it," and apologized to Bladon's family when asked to comment.' Given his mental condition, I would expect any number of self-contradictory statements to emerge like this, and therefore intent or motivation will be, as often in such cases, almost impossible to nail down, and you will have contradictory input and clashing assessments from psychaitrists depending on whose version they are called to testify about. Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a crystal ball, but maybe the case will be notable, if there are significant legal developments. The fact pattern seems to be developing in an unusual way. I still think delete is best for now, without prejudice to recreating the article if it satisfies notability in the future. Seraphim System 20:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete pr WP:NOTNEWS, Huldra (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- I don't see any persistence behind this story; just a crazy person with a knife:

• "attacker had been arrested at the scene and is believed to suffer from mental illness" link.

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

As stated by multiple sources - e.g. - shin-bet has stated: “This is another incident of many in which a Palestinian suffering from mental health or personal issues has chosen to carry out an attack as a way out of his problems,”. Just because he had issues (he attacker after calling members of his family which refused contact due to the sexual molestation of family members) - doesn't meeting this wasn't terror (it has been labeled as terror by the relevant authorities) - as such an attack is a way to redeem one-self religiously and socially - and multiple terrorists (both in this wave and in previous waves) had a desire to die - just they decide to die killing out non-Palestinians and not by jumping off a roof or in front of train - this is a statistically significant phenomena, which isn't new - Pedahzur, Ami, Arie Perliger, and Leonard Weinberg. "Altruism and fatalism: The characteristics of Palestinian suicide terrorists." Deviant Behavior 24.4 (2003): 405-423 , and is exhbitied in other places as well - e.g. the Charlie Hebdo attackes ] and the Bataclan attackers had an assortment of personal issues as well - . The existence of a pre-existing motive to die does not preclude terror - to the contrary, this is a definite characteristic of many of the attackers in many such attacks (by Palestinians and non-Palestinians).Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment We should merge this article into Suicide attack per above comment Seraphim System 08:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note - a moment of silence was held for for the victim at a Derby County game, which received wide coverage - for instance BBC - . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Continued coverage (including the moment of silence mentioned above) prove the article meats WP:SUSTAINED and WP:LASTING. Rami R 08:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: There are many WP:RS establishing notability. This was an international incident with international coverage. OtterAM (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Note: I am strongly against the idea of merging the articles. The other article, Jerusalem Light Rail, has a different and much broader focus, and doesn't have enough room in it for the information contained in this article. OtterAM (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. OtterAM (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS, Attacks like this by the IDF happen all the time against Palestinians but never get their own article so why should this? Mention it on List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017. I agree 100% with Nishidani that attacks like these against Arabs never get the level of attention that attack perpetrated by Arabs get. Not saying this was intentional bad faith by the creator of the article but it's just how the world works. Perhaps, the issue lies more in that people aren't wiling to make an article where Arabs are the victim rather than the other way around. Consistency is all I ask for. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Note that today's headlines "Palestinian who stabbed British woman to death ruled fit for trial" , makes it clear that far from being the single news cycle event asserted by multiple editors above, coverage will continue as perp is tried and sentenced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Good grief. Every crime leads to a scheduled trial, ergo, every crime must have a wiki article because the time gap between the event and the court trial makes it a 'durable' reality! Jeezus. Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly if it is reported by WP:DIVERSE sources.--Shrike (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Shrike, you mentioned WP:DIVERSE above, and are repeating yourself after I asked you to actually read that policy. I'll plug it down here to ensure you do.

'Similarly, where a single story or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information on repeating news coverage from elsewhere' (for example, "AP reported that ..."), this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability (see Misplaced Pages:Bombardment).

Misplaced Pages:Bombardment Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines state that a subject is notable if there are multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This suggests that an article bristling with sources should be safe. However, not all sources are equally valuable. A source may be reliable, but only cover a subject in a trivial manner, and if a subject is covered only by trivial mentions then it may not be notable no matter how many of them there are (see WP:BASIC).

For example, single events may be given bursts of news coverage in hundreds of newspapers around the world, prompting hundreds of news articles published on a single day. From the next day, not a single news source can be found. Even if coverage continues for a period of time, local interests are not always viewed as encyclopedic.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If there are ongoing diverse reliable sources - it should be in wikipedia. Just like Murder of Carol Cole (single victim, by stabbing) is for instance. We should not judge why the international (and local) media ascribe significance to Jihad inspired murders (particularly of young white women - even more so when the killing is on Good Friday in Jerusalem) - it is clear that they do, hence there is a place for an article. Those complaining about the coverage, should complain to NYT , WP , BBC , the Guardian , Haaretz , thousands+ article (hard to asses GNEWSHITS when they are over 100,000 supposed top-line (which is incorrect and includes potentially links to from other places) etc etc - it is not our place to judge why others consider this noteworthy, but to assess the noteworthiness ascribed to the incident by others. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

'it is not our place to judge why others consider this noteworthy'.

Actually it is our job to judge why editors think this kind of event. but not similar incidents occurring to Palestinians or Arabs, is noteworthy. It's PR for one party in a conflict, obviously. For several years, every day an incident like this arises, I have seen two or three editors, usually the same folks jump on it, write it up as an article, and then defend it at the inevitable AfDs. That these articles are written within hours of the event, before anyone knows if it may pass durability-over-time evidence, is prima facie evidence that policy is being systematically ignored, in order to get wiki space for another murderous Arab incident. Many get deleted by consensus for all the reasons given above. Quite a few slip through because many passing editors have no knowledge of this practice in the I/P area. It's a simple game. Incident+victim+death or trial of attacker, reactions: you can bloat that into a page, or sum it up in 4/5 lines. There is no POV pushing in the deletionist approach. The only neutral way to handle this is a chronological list, summarizing every incident of violence by whichever party, as has been done. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• WP:NOTADVOCATE Your argument, that Israel/Palestinian - related articles must be judged by different standards than articles about other parts of the world is against policy. Palestinians don't get their own special rules. And we are not here to Right Great Wrongs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• non-Palestinian terrorist attacks also get created same day - e.g. - 2017 Fresno shootings which was created within hours of the event, and several others (e.g. - 2016 Magnanville stabbing). These get created - because there is wide coverage in reliable sources of the events, with the usually reasonable expectation that the coverage will be continuing.Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, stabbing attacks do not even have to be terrorism-related to garner sufficient coverage to be Notable. c.f. Reutlingen knife attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

They get created because WP:NOTNEWS is dead, and has been for a long time. If you look at 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, it is entirely sourced to contemporary news reports in December 2015. There was a catchy phrase which was in the news at the time. Apart from that, there was a brief bit of news coverage in mid 2016 when the attacker was sentenced. That's basically it. Otherwise, the incident has no lasting impact. The same will be true of this event. But I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that these pages will continue to get created because a significant portion of the userbase wants these "breaking news" articles, and it is a significant driver of traffic and volunteers. It's fun to create a page which gets to the top of the Google search results immediately. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• There has, in fact, been ongoing coverage, cf :"Leytonstone Tube attack: Isil-inspired knifeman jailed for life after targeting strangers at Underground station ". Plus brief discussions in at least 2 books , , although the attack occurred just over a year ago. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• The fact that attacks like this one and the close parallel 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack inevitably come up again and again in news articles such as "Before U.K. Parliament violence, a timeline of other attacks on Britain " Toronto Star, explains why we keep them. Readers find them useful, ~2,000 a month visit that Leytonstone .E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can do a Google search as well. Apparently, it's hard to read what I wrote: Apart from that, there was a brief bit of news coverage in mid 2016 when the attacker was sentenced. None of the mentions in the books you cited are of any significance: they don't discuss the attack in any sort of detail (only a sentence or two). That does not count as "ongoing coverage". This is because the attack has had no lasting effect, just as I said. Your numbers are also wrong: the typical pageviews are about 500 a month, except for some spikes around mid 2016, and one during the recent Parliament attack. Look at the daily chart here: the typical daily pageviews are less than 20 a day. I don't know if readers find them "useful", and I am rather ambivalent about the whole matter, but Misplaced Pages should stop pretending that WP:NOTNEWS is policy, because it clearly is not. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• In fact, we delete articles all the time as per WP:NOTNEWS (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime/archive), just not articles that drew the kind of national and international attention these two have drawn.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, Offhand, how many of the articles you have written on this topic have been deleted after AfDs? Quite a few, from memory.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Nishidani: you seem to have an extremely poor memory. But I am happy to WP:AGF and point out to you that if you want to know this sort of thing, you can look at my editing record - or that of any editor - and find a list of all articles that I have created, with a notation of those that have been deleted. I trust that you will report back here on the number of articles in "this topic" that you find. By the way, how do you define "this topic"? I/P? Terrorism? Crime? After making that assertion, I do feel that you owe us an accurate report on how many articles I have created and how many have been deleted, on "this topic." And at what point in my editing career they were deleted? Also on how you iVoted and who nominated the articles for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• I just checked and I have created 359 articles since joining Misplaced Pages two years ago. I don't know how exactly many have been deleted partly because I find it convenient to live edit, and a few times I have deleted by blanking tha page of an article I began to create and thought better of (these showup as a deletions). he most recent deletion that shows up in a search is Basket of deplorables, an article I created only to see it deleted but which was soon recreated by another editor despite which it shows up as a deleted article, as do some other articles such as Kate Prusack (one of several candidate spouse articles that I created during last year's presidential campaign, but that was merged - not deleted, and Nebraska Book Award, which I created for the purpose of redirecting to Nebraska Center for the Book, but which shows up as deleted on the list of articles I have created.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• A procedural question. This seems to be quite a partisan issue, with opinions more-or-less strictly down partisan lines. I was wondering, is there a procedure for getting more comments on this AfD from the general Misplaced Pages community outside these two sides? OtterAM (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That is a good point, and perhaps should be acted on. I insist however that this is not simply a partisan divide. It is true the same people make the same quick articles on incidents of Palestinian terrorism. It is also true that editors here systematically refuse to exploit hundreds of incidents where Palestinians are shot (dead or wounded) by Israeli 'policing actions'. To give one example of dozens, when a grocer Salem Shammaly, was shot dead in front of a video camera, and the clip went viral, and the incident widely reported, neither I nor others who have objected to this article rushed to exploit it. Using E.M. Gregory's methods, to do so would have been easy to cite

the New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald,Daily Mail,Mirror July 22 2014 The Mirror,The Guardian,Vice News,Al Jazeera,New Zealand Herald,Unispal,Newsweek, and even its durability 3 years later in books, i.e.Marouf Hasian Jr.Israel's Military Operations in Gaza: Telegenic Lawfare and Warfare Routledge, 2016 p.16, or other venues, such asTestimony of Eran Efrati that Golani soldiers shot the lad. or Max Blumenthal on Transcript a year later. 'We' don't do this kind of article except when coverage is massive and continued over time. E.M. Gregory starts these articles instantaneously using breaking news. The AfDs may look partisan, but there is a neat divide between the rule-ignoring behavior of those who exploit incidents where Palestinians are culpable of violence, in order to write articles, and the rule-observant behavior of editors who do not write week by week articles of Israeli killings of Palestinian civilians. In short the procedural question requires some administrative oversight on what the fuck do the policies cited for and against actually mean, since numerous editors read them selectively, or cites them without reading them, or construe them in ways antithetical to what other editors take them to mean. I don't think the Shammaly incident merits inclusion, like hundreds of other similar cases, often on video. Stuff like this fails WP:NOTNEWS, however tragic or shocking, but can qualify for a list.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Giving as an example the death of young man in the midst of a hot warzone during a very active war is quite different from the homocide of a peaceful woman not in a active warzone, who was clearly targeted (NOT collateral damage, but actual target) while having nothing to do with the conflict. In addition there are allegations that this particulsr viral video is faked / staged.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It occurred during a ceasefire, arranged between the parties. Efrat interviewed the soldiers present when the sniper fired. The video was not faked. The 23 minutes of coverage was handed over to the mainstream newspapers, such as the NYTs, and nothing ever came of the 'allegation' a word always employed exclusively to incidents of filming where it would appear an innocent has been killed by the IDF.Nishidani (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

short ceasefires are frequently broken - especially when you are talking about a very hot spot which the site of a major battle - Battle of Shuja'iyya. The clip itself went viral for about 2 days. Later mentions were very scant - so there was no reason to investigate beyond the short newscycle (). The killing of young men (of fighting age) is not terribly significant in a warzone in which some 2000+ died - and if it significant for a video of the death itself (which by itself shows little besides the death) - hard to say this is significant. In contrast incidents such as - 2014 Gaza war beach bombing incidents which involved children, filming, and continued coverage beyond a 2-3 day news cycle (and minor coverage by Efrat - which isn't exactly RS) - do have articles.Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if you did have an article regarding the clip, the subject probably would have to be the clip - as a viral video, and not the shooting of Shammaly (both of these, and together, don't meet notability IMHO. The viral video had a lifespan of less than 3 days, and Shammaly or the killing of Shammaly even less). Some of the coverage didn't even mention Shammaly by name .Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The direct answer to your question, OtterAM, is that AfD discussions are advertised quite widely. Every one is listed centrally (in Category:AfD debates and in a subpage of WP:AFD), and most are also advertised to various interest groups. This AfD, for example, has been listed among the deletion discussions related to Israel, crime, terrorism, the UK, and events. If you can think of another list that may be appropriate to notify, please feel free, but please read WP:CANVASS first and be neutral in your invitation. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 21:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Just for the record: I did not create this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - additional coverage from 19-20th April - fund raising campaign for Bladon family, coverage of warning sent to Bladon of a "killer on the loose" by a friend - after Bladon had been stabbed - and other comments by flatmates (exchange students) in Jerusalem, stabber mentally fit for trial, Coverage in a weekly Hungarian paper.Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

+ coverage from a christian angle due to Good Friday - from the 18th.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest that some of the participants on this page give it a rest? I count about 18 comments from E.M.Gregory, 13 comments from Nishidani and 10 comments from Icewhiz. I think you have all made your points pretty well. From my experience, I can say with a pretty high probability that you're all wasting your breath anyway. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - Meets WP:NCRIME per; media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources and WP:Notability per; "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Just some of the many different available sources; CNN, ABC News which also links to multiple other sources including BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald, etc, etc. Many many Israli sources including Times of Israel. All of these have provided more than a simple one paragraph repeat of every other source. There's also more minor mentions like this one in the WashingtonPost. To put this a little further, there's a requirement for reliability which should be self-evidently met, but, look at the sources for yourself. Sources are both secondary and independent of the subject. Now, this gives it presumed notability which is not the same as notability as some would be quick to point out. Because of that, it makes sense to address some of the arguments for deleting the article presented above.
  Argument 1 WP:SUSTAINED; That is something of a WP:CRYSTALBALL assumption, but, a credible one. I think it'll last a little bit longer than your "run of the mill" attack given that a British exchange student is the victim and thus forces international coverage. There might be some greater implications than a random stabbing attack on a local would. The same reasoning applies to WP:PERSISTENCE as well. Argument 2 - "likely fails WP:EVENT + + +"; from the guideline itself This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Same crystalballing being applied as the first argument. But, again, the argument to keep is crystalballing in the opposite direction. Argument 3 - WP:GEOSCOPE; obviously does not apply given international coverage due to death of British student. This is not local news, its gone international. Argument 4 - WP:NOTNEWS; ... editors are encouraged ... and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. There's no guideline or policy on what constitutes "significant", but, there are a couple of essays on it that really don't do anything to help (e.g. WP:SIGNIFICANT and WP:CCSI). I think WP:DIVERSE applies here and that it suffices to establish significance per; Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable which of course if this is being reported in Israeli, US, British, Australian and even German sources is more than enough to meet "diverse". These sources aren't just word for word repeats of each other either, but, they do cover the same general gist of what has happened. Argument 5 - An unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable but, for the most part, it doesn't work the other way around. That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument of Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. In this case, that is not a credible argument for deleting. Lastly I'll tackle WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS; again, this does not apply. It has nothing to do with; routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Other than that there are quite a few more delete arguments which are "per somebody else".
  It makes greater sense to me to look at the WP:MURDEROF essay (even though it's a bit more than just a murder) which links to a variety of guidelines and policies most of which have been mentioned here but only one which I think needs close inspection; "Persistence". I think the strongest argument for delete is WP:PERSISTENCE specifically because; Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. To extend this back to "Murder of", persistence is met if at least some of the following happens; Some factors that may lead to a murder being notable include a large volume of coverage beyond the local area of its occurrence and continuing for a lengthy period of time thereafter, a highly publicized investigation or trial, an article about the case in a magazine long after the case has been closed, coverage on a TV series, a movie or documentary being made about the case, a new forensic technique being used to solve the crime, a law being passed as a result of the crime, or other lasting effects. I've emphasized one point which has already been met. The trial is already being lightly publicized; fit to stand for trial. Whether or not the trial itself gets any attention is a matter for when the trial comes along. It's still in the news cycle and may or may not be as notable in a week, month, or year from now. My feeling on this is that while it won't be a huge deal it already is more than a minor local affair. I think because of this, the article merits inclusion on the encyclopaedia. Side-issue; There is a lot of, to be honest, useless nonsense written above that is entirely distracting from the issue. I have to endorse Kingsidian's comment about "giving it a rest". Mr rnddude (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Dang, I couldn't have said that better myself. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Despite the extensive argument above, this is news. That it gained coverage is no surprise (though a "lightly publicized trail" isn't much), but that this coverage makes it an encyclopedic article, I dispute that. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, sorry about that. I am not good at condensing an argument into something short and solid. I always find things to add and expand till eventually it's a solid mass of words arguing part for and part against my position. Well, if it was informative in any way than that's good enough for me. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I respect people who actually do some work round here by actually examining the details, though I disagree with your conclusions. I would note that no article has been done (rightly so, it's not politically sexy enough) on this incident, which I noted while catching up on the backlog. If you examine it, it is identical to the incident in this article up for deletion or otherwise. It received a few news reports in Israel and Palestinian sources, not abroad. The difference is that the incident treated in this article we are discussing affected a foreign woman. The motivation appears to be otherwise identical, an attempt to get killed by killing someone. I agree with Drmies. Both deserve registration in a few lines in the appropriate list, but fail our criteria for durability.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, no apology necessary. Just be glad I didn't write you my essay on NOTNEWS! (It's in heroic couplets.) Drmies (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Per arguments made by Shrike, and others.--Jobas (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV. This article is used by some of the more vocal defenders / editors of the article to further an agenda. Notice edits like this from last hour, re-adding "terrorism" wherever possible (including the navbox for "Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2010s", even though this was highly uncertain as a terrorist attack, and not against an Israeli, adding categories like Category:Mass stabbings (as explained multiple times, there was no "mass" stabbing here) and Category:Palestinian terrorism (which seems to be the main reason why this article was created and must be kept separately at all costs). This is a minor incident, probably not an actual terrorist attack but simply a deranged, deluded murder, which gets hyped up to further a political agenda. We shouldn't play along with such games. If it has real, lasting repercussions beyond one very sad death and one trial, it is time to revisit this. Until then, this shouldn't be on enwiki. Fram (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates