Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:42, 13 September 2010 editDonnie Park (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users17,254 edits →Template:Motorsport in the UK ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:06, 13 September 2010 edit undoWikifan12345 (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers12,039 edits striking bad faith commentsNext edit →
Line 63:		Line 63:
	::::You are completely wrong there. A local consensus does not trump site wide norms and standards and NOTNEWS has been a long standing policy that has wide support. The keep arguments were based on two main elements -that these articles were notable and that anyway IP articles are more important. The first is irrelevant because its too soon to see evidence of enduring notability so the policy trumps the guideline and the second is simply arguing that a local consensus should trump a site wide consensus, which doesn't happen. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 08:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)		::::You are completely wrong there. A local consensus does not trump site wide norms and standards and NOTNEWS has been a long standing policy that has wide support. The keep arguments were based on two main elements -that these articles were notable and that anyway IP articles are more important. The first is irrelevant because its too soon to see evidence of enduring notability so the policy trumps the guideline and the second is simply arguing that a local consensus should trump a site wide consensus, which doesn't happen. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 08:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I am certainly not "arguing for an exemption from NOTNEWS for I/P articles." User:Shuki and I are making two clear and simple arguments. One is that there is a WP:CONS that individual terrorism incidents are significant. This consensus is demonstrated by the fact that Misplaced Pages has hundreds of such articles, many about incidents as minor as the ]. That article has been on Misplaced Pages since 2007. The fact that hundreds of stable Misplaced Pages articles exist on minor plots, incidents of intended terrorism that never happened, makes it clear not that anyone is arguing that Israel/Palestine articles should be treated differently, but that I/P articles are in fact being treated differently than other articles. To wit: they are deleted whereas comparable articles about incidents of terrorism elsewhere in the world are not. Note, for example, that ] was nominated for deletion before I had even finished writing it. The ] was not treated this way. Nor was the ]. To keep them but delete ] you have to argue that I/P articles be treated differently than articles about the British Isles. My second argument is that ] and ] should not be deleted under NotNews because they are about incidents that are having a real impact on the peace process and on the construction freeze in settlements in the West Bank. And that ] , despite the poor title, it is in fact not about a single incident but about a series of rocket attacks over several years.] (]) 11:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)		:::::I am certainly not "arguing for an exemption from NOTNEWS for I/P articles." User:Shuki and I are making two clear and simple arguments. One is that there is a WP:CONS that individual terrorism incidents are significant. This consensus is demonstrated by the fact that Misplaced Pages has hundreds of such articles, many about incidents as minor as the ]. That article has been on Misplaced Pages since 2007. The fact that hundreds of stable Misplaced Pages articles exist on minor plots, incidents of intended terrorism that never happened, makes it clear not that anyone is arguing that Israel/Palestine articles should be treated differently, but that I/P articles are in fact being treated differently than other articles. To wit: they are deleted whereas comparable articles about incidents of terrorism elsewhere in the world are not. Note, for example, that ] was nominated for deletion before I had even finished writing it. The ] was not treated this way. Nor was the ]. To keep them but delete ] you have to argue that I/P articles be treated differently than articles about the British Isles. My second argument is that ] and ] should not be deleted under NotNews because they are about incidents that are having a real impact on the peace process and on the construction freeze in settlements in the West Bank. And that ] , despite the poor title, it is in fact not about a single incident but about a series of rocket attacks over several years.] (]) 11:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
	:::::The rationale for deletion was dubious at best and malicious at worst. Admin provided identical rationales for all 3 articles, ignoring the AFD discussion, and demonstrated no interest in the quality of the article. Compared to ] and the ], the 3 Israeli attacks was subject to far more attention. While Israel has been subject to more than 100 terrorist acts, the 3 incidents were inspired by the peace process and set an historic precedent by Hamas. This was a not random act of violence, it was premeditated and organized by the Hamas leader to disrupt and torpedo the ]. Anyone seriously believe these facts qualify as NOTNEWS? ] (]) 11:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)}}		:::::<strike>The rationale for deletion was dubious at best and malicious at worst. Admin provided identical rationales for all 3 articles, ignoring the AFD discussion, and demonstrated no interest in the quality of the article.</strike> Compared to ] and the ], the 3 Israeli attacks was subject to far more attention. While Israel has been subject to more than 100 terrorist acts, the 3 incidents were inspired by the peace process and set an historic precedent by Hamas. This was a not random act of violence, it was premeditated and organized by the Hamas leader to disrupt and torpedo the ]. Anyone seriously believe these facts qualify as NOTNEWS? ] (]) 11:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)}}
	{{collapse bottom}}		{{collapse bottom}}

Revision as of 22:06, 13 September 2010

< 2010 September 12 Deletion review archives: 2010 September 2010 September 14 >

13 September 2010

Template:Motorsport in the UK

I cannot understand why the decision to close this nomination as kept, when the only person to vote keep was the template creator himself, but then if you are the creator of the template, you really will do anything to save your template, well who wouldn't. My point for deletion was as I pointed out that if you added a more comprehensive amount in bluelink or redlink that have the potential to become bluelinked, then this template will become too oversized for its own good, which the admin failed to realise that the one keep vote was from the creator himself. Since this decision to keep this template, I have addad a lot more in to illustrate my point, not to mention there will be some more to come. Donnie Park (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Endorse While there was only 1 !vote favoring keeping the template, a second editor endorsed a modification to the template, an expressed desire to have the template retained in a different form and an implicit keep. The nominator failed to attract any other delete !voters, which is the real issue here. A relist or no-consensus close would also have been acceptable, but there's no abuse of discretion involved here. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The one vote was by the creator of the template himself who didn't have a valid reason why this template is worth keeping, I can't see that vote is worth keeping considering it was by the creator himself. Personally, I would like another renomination as I think this is a joke that it was closed as a keep considering that weak keep vote was by the creator himself. Donnie Park (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. So, you have added a ton of redlinks to the template increasing its size by almost three times! Now you are claiming that because of this it suddenly has become more deletable than before. You are obviously trying to make a point here. Ruslik_Zero 19:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Endorse. The nominator didn't convince anyone else to support deletion, and the deletion rationale is poorly reasoned at best. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Toplist

Widespread and important web concept - 106 million ghits! Toplist was effectively blanked by the nominating author. Insufficient attempt to find sources - certainly there are many topsite scripts available. The idea is of a similar vintage to banner exchanges and webrings. Rich Farmbrough, 14:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

So where are the sources? The AfD appears to hinge on the lack of sourcing--many people asserting sources should be findable, no sources brought forth in the AfD. I don't doubt that there might be sources out there, but the AfD looks eminently reasonable and I endorse Spartaz' close. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. Google hits are irrelevant, and mere existence is not the same as there being sufficient verifiable content for us to have an article. Rich's argument is essentially IVEHEARDOFIT and GHITS. I couldn't find any discussion of the idea of "Toplists" in reliable sources either, so I doubt the failure of those at AfD to find such sources was due to neglect. If Rich or anyone else can dig up sources then deletion could be reconsidered - but not until then. Fences&Windows 17:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Endorse. The articles in as-deleted state were awful, and there were a total of zero convincing keep arguments at either. Show me some decent sources and I'll happily support recreation, but so far I'm not seeing much. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Endorse, clear consensus to delete. Argument presented here is essentially WP:GHITS. Would support recreation, but only if a suitably referenced replacement article is prepared first. Lankiveil 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

June 2010 West Bank shooting and August 2010 West Bank shooting

Overturn to keep on both There was no consensus to delete. The claim that NOTNEWS trumps NOTABILITY seems weak because the editors who supported retention made a case that this incident was not routine, having particular special characteristics and the closer failed to address this argument. In asserting the primacy of the not news argument, the close lacked consistency with our general practise and failed to observe the guidance of WP:DGFA by not respecting the judgement of the editors and deleting despite the element of doubt. AMuseo (talk)

The articles should be kept for two reasons. One is that there is a WP:CONS that individual terrorism incidents are significant. This consensus is demonstrated by the fact that Misplaced Pages has hundreds of such articles, many about incidents as minor as the Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot. That article has been on Misplaced Pages since 2007. The fact that hundreds of stable Misplaced Pages articles exist on minor plots, incidents of intended terrorism that never happened, makes it clear not that anyone is arguing that Israel/Palestine articles should be treated differently, as the closing administrator has asserted, but that I/P articles are in fact being treated differently than other articles. To wit: they are deleted whereas comparable articles about incidents of terrorism elsewhere in the world are not. Note, for example, that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting was nominated for deletion before I had even finished writing it. The 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot was not treated this way. Nor was the 2010 Newry car bombing. To keep them but delete Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting you have to argue that I/P articles be treated differently than articles about the British Isles. My second argument is that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting should not be deleted under NotNews because they are about incidents that are having a real impact on the peace process and on the construction freeze in settlements in the West Bank. in particular, because pressure from settlers in the West Bank has caused the government of Israel to lift the ban on construction in West Bank settlements , , but also it is widely understood that Hamas launched the attacks in a deliberate effort to derail the peace talks , . there are dozens more articles like these in this week's news. Deleting an incident with this kind of impact as a news story of merely temporary interest is incorrect.AMuseo (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Spartaz, AFD closing admin
I saw that you deleted three articles about terrorist attacks on Israel and Jordan with the reason NOTNEWS. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting I would like your blessing in cleaning out the related cats starting with all articles in Category:Terrorist incidents in 2010. If you disagree, then please state why the three you deleted are different from anything in there. --Shuki (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Essentially its down to you whether you see sufficiently similar characteristics between the articles in that catagory for these AFDs to be a precedent. I certainly do not see the lists as being bound by these and whether the other articles should be deleted no doubt will depend on whether there is an overarching article that already covers the subject in part or whole. I should also draw your attention to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Spartaz 18:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I believe that your deletion close of these three articles was incorrect, perhaps because this is a region that you do not follow closely. You are doubtless aware that there are ongoing peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The incident that you deleted Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting is having a material impact on these talks, in particular, because pressure from settlers in the West Bank has caused the government of Israel to lift the ban on construction in West Bank settlements , , but also it is widely understood that Hamas launched the attacks in a deliberate effort to derail the peace talks , . there are dozens more article like these. Citing an incident with this kind of impact as a news story of merely temporary interest is incorrect. The Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting also continues to be in the news. , and, significantly, to be cited as an obstacle (or s a reason for obstructing) the peace process. As above, I can cite many recent article similar to these. My objection to your deletion of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba is that the title under which the article was deleted was, if I recall correctly, a move from a previous title that, like the article, treated the August rocket attacks as the most recent in a series of rocket attacks that jointly target (and cause destruction in) Aquaba, Jordan, and Eilat, Israel. This is not a trivail topic and, unfortunately, not a transient topic as there have been a seris of such attacks in recent years. I would also like to second User:Shuki's argument. Single terror attacks, even failed ones, in Europe and the United States are routinely deemed worthy of Misplaced Pages articles. You bring WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to bear. I would argue, rather, that many articles on single incidents over many years have created a defacto Misplaced Pages standard whereby single incidents of terrorism, even failed terror attacks and incidents, merit articles. 2004 financial buildings plot, Wood Green ricin plot, Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack, 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, Qantas Flight 1737. there are many more such Misplaced Pages articles on individual incidents in which no one was killed, or which were plots that never were carried out. Misplaced Pages standards ought to be consistent. Rather than selectively delete terror incidents in Israel, I argue that we ought to accept articles about incidents of terrorism worldwide. How, after all, can we possibly argue that the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt is WP notable, while the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting, and the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMuseo (talk • contribs) Am I right that you are essentially arguing for an exemption from NOTNEWS for I/P articles based on practise and overarching importance? I'm afraid that I must disagree with that because the project as a whole needs to work to different standards. NOTNEWS is a policy which means that it trumps N which is a guideline. The time to decide if a newslike subject has enduring notability outside the immediate impact and headlines is several months down the road. August is an even worse time to make that kind of judgement for recent events because its the silly season and the papers have nothing to print. My personal view (but not one I was expressing in the close) is that there should be overarching articles that include details of these events in the context of the overall dispute - i.e. properly summarising them in the context of everything that is going on in the I/P field. Otherwise its just another news article about another routine and regrettable atrocity in a region already full to overflowing with bad events. Spartaz 03:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) No, the issue is that community WP:CONS trumps NOTNEWS. It's also about dozens, if not hundreds of articles existing, but a unique decision made here to ignore that. I'm going to ask you again; If I put up other similar 'crap' articles up for AfD like AMuseo listed above, will you support and delete at the end of the discussion week? --Shuki (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) You are completely wrong there. A local consensus does not trump site wide norms and standards and NOTNEWS has been a long standing policy that has wide support. The keep arguments were based on two main elements -that these articles were notable and that anyway IP articles are more important. The first is irrelevant because its too soon to see evidence of enduring notability so the policy trumps the guideline and the second is simply arguing that a local consensus should trump a site wide consensus, which doesn't happen. Spartaz 08:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I am certainly not "arguing for an exemption from NOTNEWS for I/P articles." User:Shuki and I are making two clear and simple arguments. One is that there is a WP:CONS that individual terrorism incidents are significant. This consensus is demonstrated by the fact that Misplaced Pages has hundreds of such articles, many about incidents as minor as the Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot. That article has been on Misplaced Pages since 2007. The fact that hundreds of stable Misplaced Pages articles exist on minor plots, incidents of intended terrorism that never happened, makes it clear not that anyone is arguing that Israel/Palestine articles should be treated differently, but that I/P articles are in fact being treated differently than other articles. To wit: they are deleted whereas comparable articles about incidents of terrorism elsewhere in the world are not. Note, for example, that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting was nominated for deletion before I had even finished writing it. The 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot was not treated this way. Nor was the 2010 Newry car bombing. To keep them but delete Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting you have to argue that I/P articles be treated differently than articles about the British Isles. My second argument is that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting should not be deleted under NotNews because they are about incidents that are having a real impact on the peace process and on the construction freeze in settlements in the West Bank. And that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba , despite the poor title, it is in fact not about a single incident but about a series of rocket attacks over several years.AMuseo (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The rationale for deletion was dubious at best and malicious at worst. Admin provided identical rationales for all 3 articles, ignoring the AFD discussion, and demonstrated no interest in the quality of the article. Compared to September 2010 Quetta bombing and the 17 August 2010 Baghdad bombings, the 3 Israeli attacks was subject to far more attention. While Israel has been subject to more than 100 terrorist acts, the 3 incidents were inspired by the peace process and set an historic precedent by Hamas. This was a not random act of violence, it was premeditated and organized by the Hamas leader to disrupt and torpedo the peace process. Anyone seriously believe these facts qualify as NOTNEWS? Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)}}

copied from User talk:Spartaz, AFD closing admin

I saw that you deleted three articles about terrorist attacks on Israel and Jordan with the reason NOTNEWS. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting I would like your blessing in cleaning out the related cats starting with all articles in Category:Terrorist incidents in 2010. If you disagree, then please state why the three you deleted are different from anything in there. --Shuki (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Essentially its down to you whether you see sufficiently similar characteristics between the articles in that catagory for these AFDs to be a precedent. I certainly do not see the lists as being bound by these and whether the other articles should be deleted no doubt will depend on whether there is an overarching article that already covers the subject in part or whole. I should also draw your attention to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Spartaz 18:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that your deletion close of these three articles was incorrect, perhaps because this is a region that you do not follow closely. You are doubtless aware that there are ongoing peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The incident that you deleted Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting is having a material impact on these talks, in particular, because pressure from settlers in the West Bank has caused the government of Israel to lift the ban on construction in West Bank settlements , , but also it is widely understood that Hamas launched the attacks in a deliberate effort to derail the peace talks , . there are dozens more article like these. Citing an incident with this kind of impact as a news story of merely temporary interest is incorrect.

The Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting also continues to be in the news. , and, significantly, to be cited as an obstacle (or s a reason for obstructing) the peace process. As above, I can cite many recent article similar to these.

My objection to your deletion of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba is that the title under which the article was deleted was, if I recall correctly, a move from a previous title that, like the article, treated the August rocket attacks as the most recent in a series of rocket attacks that jointly target (and cause destruction in) Aquaba, Jordan, and Eilat, Israel. This is not a trivail topic and, unfortunately, not a transient topic as there have been a seris of such attacks in recent years.

I would also like to second User:Shuki's argument. Single terror attacks, even failed ones, in Europe and the United States are routinely deemed worthy of Misplaced Pages articles. You bring WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to bear. I would argue, rather, that many articles on single incidents over many years have created a defacto Misplaced Pages standard whereby single incidents of terrorism, even failed terror attacks and incidents, merit articles. 2004 financial buildings plot, Wood Green ricin plot, Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack, 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, Qantas Flight 1737. there are many more such Misplaced Pages articles on individual incidents in which no one was killed, or which were plots that never were carried out. Misplaced Pages standards ought to be consistent. Rather than selectively delete terror incidents in Israel, I argue that we ought to accept articles about incidents of terrorism worldwide. How, after all, can we possibly argue that the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt is WP notable, while the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting, and the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMuseo (talk • contribs)

Am I right that you are essentially arguing for an exemption from NOTNEWS for I/P articles based on practise and overarching importance? I'm afraid that I must disagree with that because the project as a whole needs to work to different standards. NOTNEWS is a policy which means that it trumps N which is a guideline. The time to decide if a newslike subject has enduring notability outside the immediate impact and headlines is several months down the road. August is an even worse time to make that kind of judgement for recent events because its the silly season and the papers have nothing to print. My personal view (but not one I was expressing in the close) is that there should be overarching articles that include details of these events in the context of the overall dispute - i.e. properly summarising them in the context of everything that is going on in the I/P field. Otherwise its just another news article about another routine and regrettable atrocity in a region already full to overflowing with bad events. Spartaz 03:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the issue is that community WP:CONS trumps NOTNEWS. It's also about dozens, if not hundreds of articles existing, but a unique decision made here to ignore that. I'm going to ask you again; If I put up other similar 'crap' articles up for AfD like AMuseo listed above, will you support and delete at the end of the discussion week? --Shuki (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are completely wrong there. A local consensus does not trump site wide norms and standards and NOTNEWS has been a long standing policy that has wide support. The keep arguments were based on two main elements -that these articles were notable and that anyway IP articles are more important. The first is irrelevant because its too soon to see evidence of enduring notability so the policy trumps the guideline and the second is simply arguing that a local consensus should trump a site wide consensus, which doesn't happen. Spartaz 08:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly not "arguing for an exemption from NOTNEWS for I/P articles." User:Shuki and I are making two clear and simple arguments. One is that there is a WP:CONS that individual terrorism incidents are significant. This consensus is demonstrated by the fact that Misplaced Pages has hundreds of such articles, many about incidents as minor as the Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot. That article has been on Misplaced Pages since 2007. The fact that hundreds of stable Misplaced Pages articles exist on minor plots, incidents of intended terrorism that never happened, makes it clear not that anyone is arguing that Israel/Palestine articles should be treated differently, but that I/P articles are in fact being treated differently than other articles. To wit: they are deleted whereas comparable articles about incidents of terrorism elsewhere in the world are not. Note, for example, that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting was nominated for deletion before I had even finished writing it. The 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot was not treated this way. Nor was the 2010 Newry car bombing. To keep them but delete Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting you have to argue that I/P articles be treated differently than articles about the British Isles. My second argument is that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting should not be deleted under NotNews because they are about incidents that are having a real impact on the peace process and on the construction freeze in settlements in the West Bank. And that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba , despite the poor title, it is in fact not about a single incident but about a series of rocket attacks over several years.AMuseo (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The rationale for deletion was dubious at best and malicious at worst. Admin provided identical rationales for all 3 articles, ignoring the AFD discussion, and demonstrated no interest in the quality of the article. Compared to September 2010 Quetta bombing and the 17 August 2010 Baghdad bombings, the 3 Israeli attacks was subject to far more attention. While Israel has been subject to more than 100 terrorist acts, the 3 incidents were inspired by the peace process and set an historic precedent by Hamas. This was a not random act of violence, it was premeditated and organized by the Hamas leader to disrupt and torpedo the peace process. Anyone seriously believe these facts qualify as NOTNEWS? Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)}}

Overturn to no consensus on both - there wasn't so much as a majority supporting deletion, how can there be consensus? The closing admin cited "newish users" participation, but even with their votes disqualified the results were 55% and 50% supporting deletion in the June and August AFD respectfully, not even borderline consensus (and still not even a majority in the later). Rami R 13:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to keep on both. In both cases, about half the participants in the discussion advocated keeping and half deleting. Rami is right that this looks like a no-consensus, but almost all of the people in both AfDs who actually discussed the issue, rather than merely voting and citing a Misplaced Pages policy with no substantiation of its applicability here, advocated keeping. The arguments they raised were not responded to. (If this assessment is challenged, I can itemize the users and the arguments, but I'd really rather not.) If consensus or lack thereof were measured by votes as opposed to quality of arguments, there would be no point in having discussions. An independently sufficient reason to overturn to no consensus, if not to keep, is that there seems to be a Misplaced Pages-wide consensus that terror attacks are notable, as several users pointed out. To go against this consensus, deletion advocates had to bear the burden of showing why these terror attacks are exceptional, something they clearly failed to do. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to no consensus on both Closing administrator imposed his view of policy in these AfD discussions, disregarding the actual consensus of those who participated who addressed the NOTNEWS issue and explained why it was not relevant here. There was no consensus for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not forum shopping. 1, 2, 3. --Jmundo (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Overturn to keep—closing administrator made an incorrect decision both in regards to the deletion policy, and the policies he cited. Both sides presented an argument but the consensus seemed to be keep. The assertion that WP:NOTNEWS trumps WP:N is false. These policies aren't even about the same thing; it's like comparing apples to oranges. —Ynhockey 17:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to keep From NOTNEWS: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." While NOTNEWS is indeed policy, it is often used inappropriately via WP:VAGUEWAVE. A "no consensus" close would have been within discretion based on the numbers, but the NOTNEWS arguments misrepresent the policy and should have been accorded less weight. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Endorse deletion and censure the abuse of the DRV process. Disagreeing with the outcome is not a valid rationale to file a deletion review, and as many seem to willfully ignore, an AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Consensus is not about bean-counting, but rather about about weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the opinions. You disagree with how the closing admin weighed those opinions? IMO, too flippin bad. It is well within admin discretion to do so. No wrongdoing on his part here, no valid reason to overturn. Move on. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment. We wrote WP:EVENT for a reason people! WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS clash, and that guideline on the notability of events is an attempt to reconcile the two. It'd be nice if it were referred to just occasionally, it's actually quite nuanced. Sheesh. Because of this clash, vaguewaves at guidelines or policies are pointless, and closes like those of Spartaz that simply assert that something fails WP:NOTNEWS rather than demonstrate why this is the case despite opposing arguments are basically worthless. Therefore overturn to no consensus, as the closer has failed to sufficiently explain their reasoning and appears to be simply applying their own personal preference to side with those vaguewaving at NOTNEWS instead of analysing the debate. And Tarc, don't be silly: DRV is to challenge admin decisions, this is plainly not an abuse. Don't be a wikilawyer. Fences&Windows 17:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
DRVs should be be for serious misapplications of policy, not "I disagree with the outcome". Doubly so for cesspool topic areas like Israel-Palestine, where the reasons are partisan rather than procedural to oppose the AfD conclusion. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, Tarc, you're welcome to your opinion. You're welcome to present it here at DRV... but implying that other editors are not opining in good faith does not lead to an appropriately collegial environment. With all due respect, please argue policies, not motivations. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per Tarc. DRV isn't a second bite at the apple. Nobody has produced a convincing argument that the AfD closing procedure was flawed. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, WP:NOTNEWS is a policy that should be followed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to keep per Jalapenos and YnHockey. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to no consensus. Fences & Windows makes a persuasive argument here. I might have considered endorsing a delete close that had properly explained why the NOTNEWS !votes were stronger than the N ones, rather than just making a bland statement in favour of them without explaining why. As it stands, delete doesn't make sense. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to Keep, per Jclemens & Fences & Windows. NOTNEWS was intended to keep out 'routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities', no tmajor events that received widespread national and international coverage, such as these. WP:EVENT specifically states that 'Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).' HupHollandHup (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Endorse "NOTNEWS trumps N" is a completely uncontroversial statement. Just reading the keep !votes - especially those near the end - it was right to give them less weight. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to keep on both per AMuseo's detailed explanation. LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba

There was no consensus to delete. The claim that NOTNEWS trumps NOTABILITY seems weak because we routinely cover topics which are in the news and do this to the extent that we reserve a place on the main page for them. In considering whether a topic is weighty rather than ephemeral, notability is commonly used as a test and so the two considerations are complementary rather than antagonistic. The editors who supported retention made a case that this incident was not routine, having particular special characteristics and the closer failed to address this argument. In asserting the primacy of the not news argument, the close lacked consistency with our general practicum and failed to observe the guidance of WP:DGFA by not respecting the judgement of the editors and deleting despite the element of doubt. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Overturn to keepI concur that this deletion was inappropriate. Note that the article is not, in fact, about a single incident but about a series of rocket attacks on Aqaba, Jordan and Eilat, Israel over several years.AMuseo (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, see my comment above. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, your argument is quite empty since you forgot to include your attacking judgement on people from Qatar. And if you would include have it here -- the same. -DePiep (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Overturn to no consensus - same as the DRV above: If there wasn't so much as a majority supporting deletion, how can there be consensus? Rami R 13:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to keep, for the exact same reasons as in the discussion above. It's worth noting that there are two additional rocket attacks on Eilat/Aqaba, both of which are consistently mentioned by the reliable sources when discussing this one, because of their similarity. The article could expand to include them, or they could each have their own article; I don't see that it matters much. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to no consensus as in the DRV above, the issues of NOTNEWS were addressed and rejected by consensus of the participants at AfD. There was no consensus for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is not forum shopping. 1, 2, 3. --Jmundo (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to keep per my reasoning in the above discussion. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Endorse deletion and censure the abuse of the DRV process. Disagreeing with the outcome is not a valid rationale to file a deletion review, and as many seem to willfully ignore, an AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Consensus is not about bean-counting, but rather about about weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the opinions. You disagree with how the closing admin weighed those opinions? IMO, too flippin bad. It is well within admin discretion to do so. No wrongdoing on his part here, no valid reason to overturn. Move on. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per Tarc. DRV isn't a second bite at the apple. Nobody has produced a convincing argument that the AfD closing procedure was flawed. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, WP:NOTNEWS is a policy that should be followed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to keep per Colonel Warden. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to Keep, per my argument on the previous DRV. NOTNEWS was intended to keep out 'routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities', no tmajor events that received widespread national and international coverage, such as these. WP:EVENT specifically states that 'Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).' HupHollandHup (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Overturn to keep per AMuseo LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Endorse For the same reasoning as the above DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)