Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Jerusalem tractor attack (2nd nomination)

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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Jerusalem tractor attack (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)

delete: Plenty of murders, robberies, and other types of attacks take place every day and get plenty of coverage. Please see WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see anything in this article that would make it notable The Determinator p t c 13:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC) The Determinator p t c 13:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Nominator blocked indef Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Determinator.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Otherstuffexists in the context that there are plemty of other situations each day that recieves news coverage is not a deletion argument. This situation recieved worldwide coverage and passes both GNG and CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nothing has changed from last nomination meets WP:DIVERSE and meet general notability requirement per WP:GNG--Shrike (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS....William 14:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS does not trump notable events that are covered extensively by media.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, only when notability can be established. In this case there is no notability. DrSultan85 (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)blocked sock Brad Dyer (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS is another way of saying WP:EVENT, though. It's two months later and no one's talking about this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my rationale at the previous AFD: Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS as reliable sources appear to have ceased talking about it a day or so after it happened. The fact that some seem to find it a cool and novel method of killing is not a reason to ignore our policies. I'll add that in our globalized Internet age + the 24-hour news cycle, it's really easy for something non-notable to get worldwide coverage, but if no one cares anymore two days later, it still doesn't pass our event notability guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These are not run of the mill crimes, but acts with international ramifications. The claim that it is no longer mentioned in reliable sources belies the facts of a rudimentary google search. [1] --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What were these ramifications? This just sounds like "any event in Israel is automatically notable because the Arab-Israeli conflict is geopolitically important," and that's not currently part of our notability policy. If you think it should be, you can propose a change to the policy. Also, be careful when citing Google searches, because they don't ensure that the hits are relevant or come from reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice try on the strawman argument there. By non reliable sources did you mean this Times of Israel article published on September 25, almost two months after the event, in which the attack is listed as one of the most notable Jewish related events of the year? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What Brewcrewer said. Plus the fact that ongoing coverage is the measure of notability, and this story continues to be discussed now - October - published articles in a pretty wide range of reputable publications. ShulMaven (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:NOTNEWS all the way. What ramification were there, that wouldn't have occurred with another similar crime. WP:EVENT. Roscelese nailed it. That article from times of Israel is like a directory. It mentions that as a part of many crimes.70.63.179.18 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • — 70.63.179.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

RE: User:Brewcrewer brough up ramifications, are those ramifications that the "Video of the attack taken by a bystander was shown on international news media." I am convinced those are great ramifications, still delete.70.63.179.18 (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete: I agree with IP contributor. Looking the the article the impact section reads like it is defending the article inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm sorry but this article is a delete. IP editor, although I agree with your reasoning, but not approach. Please be nice.DrSultan85 (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC) blocked sock--Shrike (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment also per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, notability is not temporary. Just because a certain subject is not mentioned every day in media after time passes doesnt take away its notability. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The last AFD was open for 16 days and was closed only on August 7th and this AFD was opened on October 4th less than month by the nom now indef blocked.Now nothing has changed from last nomination meets WP:DIVERSE and WP:GNG. Now the question of WP:LASTING it may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2014 (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.