Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting

2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting (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)

WP:NOTNEWS, no lasting impact, a straightforward news story Nableezy 20:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• nonsense search I named the article following the convention used in naming the 2015 Chattanooga shootings and copied the relevant subheads used on that page, frankly because I did not know what to call this horrifically violent incident, other than to call it a shooting and name it after the nearest town named in the sources. If the name should be moved, I'm open to that. But anyone wishing to do a good-faith search for notability will have to try several different keywords, and variant spellings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What is "nonsense search" supposed to mean? Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text" What course of action is "nonsense search"? Should I search for nonsense? (Found it already, further down) Should nonsense search for something? Is search nonsense? Please explain. Kraxler (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 15:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• comment routine news? The mastermind of this terrorist attack was a convicted murderer, one of the imprisoned Islamist terrorists released in the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. Supposedly confined to Gaza, he entered Jordan and ran a terror cell targeting Israeli civilians.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Well-researched and thoroughly documented article with nearly two dozen reliable and verifiable sources about the incident from publications on three continents. The article meets and exceeds the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

How does that in any way address WP:NOTNEWS? And for reference, WP:NOT is Wikipedia policy, WP:N is a guideline, and then theres this. nableezy - 20:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is completely and totally irrelevant here. This article not 1) Journalism written as a primary reference; 2) routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities; 3) a Whos' Who; or 4) A diary. Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not a complete list of what NOTNEWS covers, as made plain by its saying for example, not these are the only things that are covered. nableezy - 12:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Notable and supported by reliable sources. No reason to delete. 2601:240:CC02:E8D6:259E:B2FD:87BE:71D7 (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is this "brand new editor´s" first (of two edits), so far. Hmmm, Huldra (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• comment I am a BIG advocate of WP:BEFORE. If nom had performed a proper WP:BEFORE he would have have understood how frivolous his decision to being this article to AFD is. He is, in fact, wasting the time and attention of WP editors. I do understand that terrorism is a controversial topic. However, it is routine for WP to have articles on terror attacks [1]Category:Terrorist incidents in 2015, and even on terror plots 2015 Boston beheading plot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Im a big advocate of not writing memorial articles for routine news. And yes, routine. Four people were shot, one died. Im from a city where that happens on a more than weekly basis. We have policy that says this is an encyclopedia, not a news repository. You want to write this on Wikinews by all means, its appropriate there. But this is not an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 16:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete No lasting impact. It come back if it is still in the news in a month or two. The fact that multiple news sources copy each other's stories for one or two days doesn't make it notable. Zero^talk 16:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  Note that has User:Zero0000 started AFD:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Danny Gonen. If he is reading this, he should know that I also just started Saleh al-Arouri, about the terrorist mastermind of these two incidents, and of many other murderous terror attacks and kidnappings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, pr MShabazz, Huldra (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep As per WP:GNG the most important of the several policies that distinguish notable events from routine news and events. WP:GNG reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article." I point you to in-depth articles on this terror murder in linked in the article. I remind editors raising WP:NOTNEWS that WP is WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and that WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a policy based argument. An event with this breadth and depth of coverage does not have to demonstrate ongoing impact to be WP notable. Under WP:EVENTCRIT an event has to meet WP:INDEPTH, which this event objectively does. Nevertheless, this shooting has had demonstrable impact (in article since the creation) on the Israeli conversation about whether to agree to a prisoner exchange that Hamas is requesting this summer (for the bodies of soldiers, or for the return of a mentally ill Israelis who crossed the border into Gaza). It is argued that since this was one of 6 recent terror murders carried out by convicted terrorists released in the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, a fresh exchange endangers the lives of Israelis and is, therefore, bad policy. Independent of that, it is making waves in diplomatic relations between Turkey and Israel (because Saleh al-Arouri) and between Israel and Jordan (because the operative directly in charge of this Hamas terror cell resides in Jordan).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• comment While working on another AFD I came across this keep iVote [2]:

User:Libertarian12111971 argues "if this article is marked for deletion, then it honestly wouldn't make sense if the 2013 Santa Monica shooting, 2013 Hialeah shooting, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting, Clackamas Town Center shooting, Southern California Edison shooting, etc., etc. articles aren't." The article under debate was kept. From this and other recent AFDs I see that there has been a trend to keep shooting attacks as WP:NOTABLE.

There is, of course, also a clear tradition of keeping ideologically motivated terror attacks as notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a killing where 1 person was killed, 3 wounded. In comparison: 2013 Santa Monica shooting: 6 killed, 4 injured; 2013 Hialeah shooting: 7 killed, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting: 3 killed, 4 wounded; Clackamas Town Center shooting: 3 killed, 1 wounded; Southern California Edison shooting: 3 killed, 2 wounded. How many fatal shootings are there in Chicago every year? Several hundred, I believe. We do not have an article on each of those. As for ideologically motivated, sure, I´ll vote "keep" on this article the day Wikipedia have an article called Shooting of Mohammed Ahmed Alauna. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep As per WP:GNG. The case received much int'l coverage and over a month later, there are still articles that mention it. The fact the murderer was released during Gil'ad Shalit exchange, makes this more notable. 06:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC) — 109.64.140.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete No lasting impact; Wikipedia is not a daily newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - editors write No lasting impact but the fact is, a over a month after it happens, it is still being mentioned in multiple news sources. The assertion it has no lasting impact isn't only premature but also inaccurate (to say the least). 21:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC) — 79.178.39.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Like I already said at Shooting of Danny Gonen.SummerSchool55 (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC) — SummerSchool55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - it's still "in the news" much later. However, some brief factual analysis might be in order here. Can somebody neutral work on this article? Bearian (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS # 2, the shooting was covered by the newsmedia, so what? All over the world, by reliable sources? That's WP:ROUTINE. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. I quote :"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." User:E.M.Gregory, what is the lasting impact of this incident? Put up or shut up. And don't come again with WP:OTHERSTUFF, please. Kraxler (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per MShabazz. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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.