Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh 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 keep. The arguments for deletion have claimed that the event has only received routine coverage and is not likely to have a lasting effect that would establish notability. The logic here is sound and based in policy. The arguments for keeping the article have directly countered that the attack has received “widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources” and has had continued coverage as the trial of the attacker has gone on. The logic here is also sound and based on policy.

Each side has pointed out that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As time has gone on, it does appear that coverage of the attack has continued and expanded. With the addition of these sources, the policy-based consensus has tended toward keeping the article. Furthermore, a sensible compromise has been proposed by BigHaz that at a future date we might be better able to assess the event’s lasting impact and notability. Malinaccier (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Yavneh attack

2017 Yavneh attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
Note article name change to 2017 Yavne attack on 2017-08-15T18:51:55‎

2017 Yavne attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

WP:NOTNEWS Article about stabbing attack with 1 injury. Received minor international media attention. Suggesting it to be merged into the 2017 Temple Mount crisis article.JBergsma1 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge and redirect - To list of terrorist incidents in August 2017 instead. This is an obvious case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE so the fact we are discussing the possibility of preserving any information is generous. This was a minor incident that, while terribly unfortunate, does not necessitate an article and a WP:RAPID check ("don't rush to create articles") could have saved us a lot of time. In the unlikelihood that this establishes a WP:LASTing impact -- not just "there will be a trial" or "but it's labeled terror" -- then maybe this can re-evaluated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Galatz's argument has convinced me to wait longer for further confirmation that this subject is unnotable. Unfortunately, I also believe the nomination rationale had a few shortcoming and swayed voters to look the other way this time. I'll observe this unnotable incident and revisit it in, say, two months when no major coverage or impact can be established, and WP:RAPID cannot be used as an excuse to keep it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Unscintillating: JBergsma1 was merely offering an alternative for !voters. He does outline a deletion rationale in his opening statement, and a merge can be decided at AfD if there is a consensus for it. If you need dozens of examples of AfDs where the outcome was "merge and redirect", I can happily supply them. Perhaps you could contribute to this AfD discussion instead of requesting an immediate closure with no progress being made?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OP stated, "Suggesting it be merged..."  That is not a "deletion rationale".  I am adding WP:NPASR to my !vote in case the OP agrees with you that a deletion was intended.  The OP was advised before posting here that "discussion guidelines" are available, so I suggest that the next nomination he/she take advantage of the community's advice.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TheGracefulSlick, Unscintillating I made this nomination when I wasn't aware yet of the possibility to nominate an article for merging, but in my opinion this article still fits the AfD as it is WP:NOTNEWS and received minor coverage as a whole. With my suggestion to merge, I wanted to say that the article either should be deleted or should be merged. I didn't put it down there, so that's my mistake.JBergsma1 (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (regardless of the procedural issues raised by Unscintillating) - there are plenty of sources for this attack which was filmed and widely circulated. Additional coverage following Prime Minister's visit to wounded victim. Still more expected coverage from future trial.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Icewhiz: is your standard for inclusion really that low that you ignore the lack of WP:DIVERSE international coverage, lack of a WP:LASTING impact, lack of coverage outside a regular news cycle, and the trivial mention of the prime minister? If your WP:CRYSTALBALL argument for "expected" (expected according to who -- you?) future coverage of a trial is the best you have, (see WP:ROUTINE) then I strongly recommend you strike your !vote, and create a more thoughtful response in tune with our guidelines, not your own.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is, of cource, nowhere written that to pass WP:NCRIME an article must have international coverage (although this stabbing attack was covered internationally). What is written is WP:GEOSCOPE: " Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article." i.e., national coverage can suffice to meet GEOSCOPE - and does routinely suffice with WP:NCRIME articles; although, of course, additional indici of notability are also needed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With an 11 day old event - some crystalballing is required. This is a case where waiting - both for article creation and article deletion is warranted. This isn't a trivial mention of the PM - but rather a bedside visit. Coverage of this event was wide in the Israeli news cycle (and the PM visit extended this over the initial coverage, as did the video) and this also got international mentions. At the current level of coverage it passed WP:NCRIME for an 11 day old event. Just because the victim was Israeli is not a reason to set a lower bar for deletion. If I were to vote on this event 6 months hence - my position might change based on the coverage the event receives then.19:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This is the coverage I see in Hebrew - [1], and this is English - [2]. We even have a mention in Aug 12 following a different stabbing attack. This level of coverage certainly qualifies for NCRIME for an 11 day old event.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Icewhiz: I ask that you do not cast aspirations. I never said anything about "lowering the bar" because the victim was Israeli. Do not try to muddy the waters with that shit; there is simply no place for that if you care at all about civil discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wasn't directed at you specifically, I apologize if this was taken so. It is my belief (based on participation in AFD discussions in I/P and non-I/P events) that I/P NCRIME events (and possibly other active conflicts) are more likely to be face merge/redirect/deletion discussions. It is my belief that notability should be applied per the level of coverage regardless of where this occurs.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
also WP:CRYSTAL? you're assuming future coverage will occur. LibStar (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This 12 day old event has been received several spurts of coverage in the past 12 days. It hasn't been a single newcycle item. The videos, the fighting back, the extremely critical injury and recovery, politician attention, etc. - has brought this a bit beyond the "normal" attacks. This is the problem with bringing an event that is only a few days old to AFD - you end up judging it by the coverage up until the point.Icewhiz (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar: I believe you should read my comments below when I clarified this further. I mentioned view two of WP:DEADLINE, where since there is potential for it that its too soon. In 6 months I might feel differently but right now I dont.
I think its premature it say that it died. If you look at Murder of Shelly Dadon you will see that there are huge gaps in the coverage as well, but as the trials move forward it resurfaces. A month after the murder it was gone from the news, but it was back in the news later. I would personally have not created this article yet, but once it is created I think its too premature to delete it.
Additionally WP:RAPID certainly applies as points directly to WP:DEADLINE (I know an essay not a policy, but its what the policy refers to) which states in view two "We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established." Are you telling me that we cannot point to its POTENTIAL significance? That is why it is premature to delete this article until time has proven that there is no potential for significance. And as I said before I would not have created it due to view one, but once it is created, I fall into view two, and feel WP:RAPID applies. - GalatzTalk 14:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: a quick glance will show no one has argued deletion. This is the second time you have inferred I and others have different standards for Isaerli victims. I ask you to provide diffs to support these claims or redact that portion of the comment as it is a personal attack.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: and how is that relevant to this discussion? I know you are trying to muddy the waters (as usual) by first insinuating I have some prejudice against Israeli victims then bringing up unrelated comments I made but isn't that a little much to keep an article that is going to be kept regardless of your participation. Even for you?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was attempting to clarify that your editing shows no particular bias against terrorist attacks in Israel, rather, you dismiss the notability of terrorist attacks that do not produce mass casualties in general.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a random aside, I do believe there is that feeling on WP. Not saying this discussion fits into that or not, and not accusing anyone of it, just as a statement of fact. For example, the one case that I always remember for the is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Tel Aviv shooting because that was the rationale for nominating. - GalatzTalk 19:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, so I
Moved to 2017 Yavne attack
I left a redirect just so everything is clear, those can be deleted later if we feel that Yavne with a "h" is not a viable search term. I also added a Find Sources template above with the correct spelling. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Setting up a perimeter around a crime scene is standard operating procedure for police forces around the world. At heart this is an isolated incident with minimal human effects and not the slightest inkling of longterm historic importance in the offing... Carrite (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This led to a blockade of Yata next to Hebron, not near Yavne for a few days AFTER the stabber was caught (at the scene itself).Icewhiz (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do you prove a negative? Carrite (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can prove it if you wait a few months at least before running to Afd. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If no person dies in the attack, then I don't think it reaches the notability threshold. ImTheIP (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NCRIME. The outcome is irrelevant, what's relevant is coverage (even a non-crime such as a runaway bride that received coverage as a crime before being determined as benign, is notable).Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One injured, no dead. No lasting significance to be expected. WP is NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A redirect to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017 also seems suitable. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017. I waited a few days and performed yet another WP:BEFORE search but, as expected, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE has been established. With nothing outside the basic news cycle, this incident falls under WP:NOTNEWS. No WP:LASTING impact has been established in RS and coverage fails WP:DIVERSE as it is mainly localized and mirrored other media reports. The incident also falls short of WP:GEOSCOPE since the crime affected a very small area (the crime scene) and had absolutely no long-term affect on the community itself. According to WP:EVENTCRIT, events, including crimes like these, are often reported by the media but post-analytical sources are what support notability. WP:ROUTINE reports about a future trial, even if everyone's WP:CRYSTALBALLs are working better than usual, do not contribute to notability. I urge editors to stop waiting for non-existent notability and judge the article on the limited coverage available -- as we are supposed to.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose that redirect on the grounds that detail useful to WP users is necessarily lost in the redirect of a of a well-sourced article. But also that user-friendliness is lost in the redirect of an article to a single list rather than to the multiple lists that enable users to actually find the the info that they are looking for. Moreover, incident has had more than sufficient national and international coverage to meet WP:NCRIME. Note in particular that there has been coverage of the impact on perp's hometown, that perp is in custody so there be a trial; and that the press has followed the recovery of the victim, the heroic-middle-aged-grocery-clerk-fights-off-attack-by-young-terrorist angle makes good copy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Obviously the attack received international coverage and it is crystallballing to say that it won't further have coverage in future future (these cases do come around especially at sentencing time). Nominate again in a couple of years, we'll see what the record says then. Now, on the issue that "there were no deaths." If this was somehow any sort of standard, then you would have to delete the "Cecil the Lion" article, as: (1) There were no human deaths (2) The courts ruled everyone was innocent: the U.S. hunter, the Zimbabwean hunt guide, etc. I.e, there was never a case at all, only media and mass hysteria. The bottom line is that the current standard is that notability is documented via WP:RS from media and authors and as the Yavne attack has plenty of WP:RS from media, people don't have a foot to stand on to argue for deletion. XavierItzm (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The indictment came down today and lots more information is now coming out about the attack, furthering the WP:LASTING argument - GalatzTalk 14:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. And the victim got out of hospital - both gave a spurt of coverage today. An interesting tidbit from the coverage today is that the attacker just came back from an Umrah to Mecca, and according to his confession saw the attack as a religious commandment of Jihdad (as opposed to a secular-nationalist framing).Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEY. Additions to article by editors Icewhiz and Galatz draw on new press coverage to override Carrite's WP:CRYSTALBALL prediction that no "significance" would emerge, and should reduce concerns expressed by Nom and Graceful Slick that sourcing is inadequate to pass WP:NCRIME. It is unusual, perhaps novel, for a Palestinian to visit Mecca and assert that the pilgrimage was made as ideological preparation/inspiration for committing murder.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017. Thankfully no deaths but also no significant international coverage, as opposed to 2016 Hurghada attack where I voted keep [[5]]. BTW - the ABC.com link just goes to their main page. Other international web sites just reposted the AP report. [[6]]. If more extensive independent international (i.e. non-AP) coverage develops and this attack takes on greater cultural or societal significance for any reason, then this can always be easily restored as long as it's not deleted. WP:CRYSTAL applies. And it appears the most important content has already been merged to that article anyway. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I skimmed the long list of sources from unfamiliar Israeli sites, none of which really offered more than "Palestinian terrorist stabs Israeli worker and is arrested", I admit I did miss the NY Times coverage. But not only is the Times article not specifically about the attack in title or main content, the brief mention comes 22 paragraphs down. An indication of the continuing tensions came on Wednesday when a Palestinian teenager from the West Bank stabbed a supermarket worker in the back in the central Israeli town of Yavne, seriously wounding him, in the kind of attack that has become almost common over the past couple of years. Not only is it incidental coverage, it actually hurts your argument in this context by essentially saying this type of attack is too common to be worthy of its own article. Nonetheless, I did think about the same thing you mention below - that the long list of attacks make it harder to find the one you are looking for, but for that the reader can do a browser in page keyword search. It's better than nothing if the article was deleted altogether, and seems like a fair compromise. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-ha - just checked the edit history and saw why I missed the Times coverage - you just added it after I voted. Now I don't feel so embarrassed. Calling me out for missing coverage that isn't in the article seems a bit unfair, but I've been bludgeoned worse by others. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more sources to the article that I hope eases your concerns. I added a few UK, Australia and Italy sources to show more international coverage. - GalatzTalk 13:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TimTempleton, I ought to have written that, and do apologize. Unless an article at AfD is prima facie k or d, I tend to run my own news search. In this case, I assumed tha there must have been intl. coverage, and added a little of what is out there. Do note that there has been WP:SIGCOV from Iran and Russia - not all of it added to article. International coverage does not begin and end with The AFP, BBC and CNN are not the alpha to omega of the international media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I didn't want my vote to be based on an oversight. This discussion could start a policy initiative so I've come back. I like BigHaz's idea below that we need to come up with some sort of threshold for what is notable or not. I visited WP:NOTNEWS: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." I read most of the English coverage (am not a fan of foreign language sources, since they are just used to show notability and not really add to the user experience - but that's a different hill), and still feel the horrific attack was not something that warrants its own article. As a counterpoint, I found a domestic terrorism incident that was also horrific and also thankfully not fatal, which has not been turned into a dedicated article. Unite the Right rally#August 12 discusses the brutal beating of Deandre Harris by Daniel Borden and five others, but it is a single paragraph in a larger article. I would argue that the Harris beating is at least as noteworthy as the Yavnez stabbing - even the NY Times coverage says Yavnez is all too common. The aftereffects - the Yatta village lockdown - are also considered routine according to the Israeli media coverage.[[7]] So to help out anyone who wants to come up with some consistent guidelines for how to address this and future AfD discussions, perhaps it becomes a checklist, with three criteria that the article has to pass:
1) Is the event unique, either as itself or through its eventual societal/legal/political impact?
2) Is the event covered in detail by more than just local outlets, signifying general interest (national is fine, international is great)?
3) Is the coverage diverse - i.e. not just multiple sources rehashing the same basic facts (as you might find with outlets that recycle AP coverage)?
I think this event fails 1 (as of today), just barely passes 2 and does better with 3. But all 3 should pass. Then the next decision tree is 4) Is the event part of a broader event, such as a sustained series of attacks? Since 4 applies, a merge would make more sense (if 4 didn't it would be a clean delete). I hunted some more to find if there was a more appropriate merge destination than List of terrorist incidents in August 2017 but it's a bit of a hodgepodge. There's Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which ends in 2014 and sends readers to Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–2016), but there's nothing specifically for 2017. Absent someone who is willing to create an article for 2017 Israeli-Palestinian terrorist incidents, the only suitable place for a redirect is the aforementioned August 2017 article. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen several sources refer to this as part of a series of attacks as part of the 2017 Temple Mount crisis. - GalatzTalk 16:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this attack can be linked, that would be an excellent redirect option. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know I have seen it elsewhere but the NYT article refers to it as part of the continued tensions [8]. - GalatzTalk 19:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose redirect because redirecting a notable crime to any single list reduces functionality of Wikipedia because it makes it far more difficult to find what they are looking for. This stand-alone article can be usefully linked from articles and lists about a range of topics, from jihad attacks inspired by self-described piety, to a list of Palestinian terrorists receiving generous pensions form the Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund, to terrorist attacks on Israelis, and probably other articles. Functionality of eliminating detail and reducing usefulness by directing it to a List of terrorist incidents in August 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsurprisingly I'm going to have to remind you of WP:BLUDGEON yet again. Your keep vote sufficiently tells us you oppose other options yet you have used two additional occasions to express how you oppose a redirect. Let other editors vote. We don't need constant updates reasserting how you are against anything other than keep.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the massive changes to the article since the nomination (28 new sources and 10x more content)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on the fact that the article has been considerably expanded and the subject - at least for the present - seems to have achieved a sufficient level of notability. I can't help thinking, though, that it wouldn't be a bad idea either to have a blanket policy of revisiting these AfD-nominated terrorist attacks after a suitable amount of time has elapsed (6 months? Probably more) in order to gauge whether what looks like notability now really is so, particularly when it's easy for an expert to say that "because the attacker did X, this signals a new direction in terrorism", and then nobody else ever does X again. Additionally, I wouldn't mind it one bit if someone more dedicated than I (but less...I'm going to say "involved"...than the two well-known antagonists here) were to have a crack at a subject-specific notability guideline for acts of terror, as there are clearly some passionately-held views (and a passionately-wielded bludgeon, I note, which is a discussion for another time) on both sides and it's sadly not a type of article that's going to cease getting created any time soon. The best I can volunteer for in that regard is a level of neutrality and a preference for clarity, rather than anything else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the proposals made by BigHaz & Templeton, I would say that WP:NCRIME covers the territory very well; not to mention the disadvantages of entangling notability guidelines with the debate over what constitutes an act of "terrorism".E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that article out. It mirrors somewhat my thoughts above and I had not seen it before. This article fails WP:DIVERSE, and arguably WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 14:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely meets DIVERSE - it has been picked up by every Israeli, Jewish, and Palestinian source - as well as several international sources. Regarding DEPTH - there is feature length coverage here in several sources. PERSISTENCE here is tricky due to WP:RAPID - the coverage is sustained from the attack to present (with major coverage this week - following hospital release and indictment) - but still covers a short time span as this is a recent event. Note that in most cases national coverage is enough, and that Israeli/Jewish press do not cover EVERY attack in a persistent manner (most stabbings - die out in terms of coverage within a few days - this one has been ongoing due to the "drama" associated with it (all on film, a victim on death's door, and the attacker's behavior and motivation)).Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:EVENT ."Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Simply being related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict isn't enough to give this "additional enduring significance". Power~enwiki (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I really hope the closing admin carefully analyzes the rationales provided here. There may be a slight "lead" (which would only matter if this were a majority vote) in keep votes; however, the case to at the very least redirect this article is supported by accurate takes on our guidelines. Hopefully, they also discount votes that simply say "per above" or "sources indicate notability" as they do not apply any thoughtful rationale for the side those statements support.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- even though substantially expanded, the article content still fails WP:NOTNEWS. For example, the "Aftermath" section contains: "Israel Defense Forces (IDF) forces raided the home of the assailant in the city of Yatta, and arrested his father." This is routine reporting. I fail to see the encyclopedic relevance here; hence my vote is still for a "Redirect" to a list. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Yavneh_attack_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137520665"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh attack (2nd nomination), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.