Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beit Hanan attack

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 delete. Missvain (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Hanan attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Clearly unntoble. It cites Israeli government. Nytimes does not mention "Beit Hanan". -- Maudslay II (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Event reported by mainstream and reliable sources, including The New York Times, Milwaukee Journal, Ocala Star-Banner and others.--SoaringLL (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון

Milwaukee link is not working. Other sources including Nytimes does not even mention Beit Hanan. How is it notable? -- Maudslay II (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The attack is mentioned: the 4 civilian murdered by Egyptian. If the name is not precise it could be changed --Shrike (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we have 3 sources from 1955 that says: an attack happened. No location. No details. No WP:DEPTH. No WP:LASTING. Are 3 sources enough? Is that notable? -- Maudslay II (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep political motiviated attack on civilians with casualties cited by RS. Sokuya (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no secondary sources cited at all (and newspaper accounts 50 years later are WP:PRIMARY, see for example here). Bring some actual secondary sources that discuss this and provide in depth coverage then make an article. As it stands now there are literally 0 sources demonstrating any type of coverage in secondary sources. nableezy - 21:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. No case for deletion was made or, for that matter, exists. The attack was mentioned in all Israeli press at that time example1example2example3example4example5 and has not been forgotten since. There are tens of article like this, just for this massacre. It's part of a sad history of violence. The nomination refers to the lack of references in the article but per WP:NEXIST (an important part of the notability guideline) this does not matter at all. It are the sources "out there" that count. gidonb (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those show any lasting coverage, which is what WP:NEVENT requires. Primary sources that are 50 years old do not notability make. nableezy - 01:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are not primary but secondary sources from that time. I will look for contemporaneous sources later. The labor lodging location where people were massacred is in between two moshavs (sometimes also containing the workers for both) creating some confusion below and in the intro. gidonb (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are primary sources now. And they show no lasting coverage now. nableezy - 20:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually these were and remained journalistic reports, independent, in-depth, reliable, verifiable, secondary, and plentiful. gidonb (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDHT. I tagged the article, needs reliable sources that support the content.Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Everyone should disagree with "points" under their opinion that are not supported by policy, science, and the facts. Plus there is absolutely no need to tag something that is under discussion in AfD in addition to an AfD, then edit war about it. It's an overkill and WP:POINT. gidonb (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read this and this for why 50 year old contemporary news accounts are primary sources. And it should be obvious why those being the only sources cited does not satisfy the requirement for WP:LASTING coverage. nableezy - 09:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Of the given sources for the article, all external links, all old newspaper reports, one is a perma dead link, the others do not support the material in the article by location or description (eg Palestinian Fedayeen in the article versus Egypytian infiltrators in the papers). Need to find some proper sourcing if this is to be kept.Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. OP's rationale makes no sense but this appears to be a news event without discrete lasting impact. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:EVENT, have been unable to find significant non-routine coverage beyond initial reports (most/all in the article), their may be mentions of it later eg. here ("The Beit Hanan attack in 1955 left four Jews dead, shot and stabbed as they worked the fields."), but these are not enough to warrent a standalone article (as a sidepoint, i note that it has not been deemed significant enough to be mentioned in the Beit Hanan article; a sentence could be included in the "History" section(?)). Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2021 (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.