Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Inf-in MD (talk · contribs · block log)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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. Going with the keeps here - appears to be getting lasting, international coverage. If you wish to propose merges, please do so at the appropriate article talk pages.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:NOTNEWS,WP:ROUTINE,WP:NOTMEMORIAL , not WP:PERSISTENT, not WP:DIVERSE, one of many violent incidents of the conflict. Despite the place name in the title it is about the stabbing of a not WP:NOTABLE person. Coverage mainly on the day. Include in an appropriate list. Selfstudier (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily satisfies WP:GNG, per the numerous reliable sources in the article. As far as lasting impact, it is catalogued in Terrorism, 2013-2015: A Worldwide Chronology, and described as the impetus for the creation of an Israeli settlement Evyatar, in news coverage from just 2 weeks ago [1], [2], 8 years after the event. The OP's rationale is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Naming an illegal Israeli outpost, dismantled shortly thereafter, by the first name of the victim, 9 years later, is not enduring coverage. The google book is just a potboiler, a list of events over a two year period by an ex CIA analyst. Compare with Murder of Rina Shnerb or Murder of Ari Fuld, there is just no comparison. Most of the sources are from Israeli newsorgs, as I said, no lasting coverage, routine, notnews, memorial, not notable (place or person).Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was covered by multiple international media (UK, France, US, Israel) as recently as two weeks ago, 8 years after the event. You either do not understand WP:NEWS and WP:ROUTINE, or are willingly ignoring it. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was covered by various international sources it more then enough per our polices and mentioned even today [3] Shrike (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of an illegal outpost being vacated yet again and the other current goings on there do not constitute coverage of Tapua Junction or the victim.Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage that describes the event as the reason this outpost exists. That is evidence of both lasting impact (and event with international repercussions 8 years later) and ongoing coverage (press mentioning it 8 years later). I don't think you are competent to edit here, as you clearly don't understand the policies you are quoting. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The outpost does not exist and only existed briefly after the event. There are no international repercussions and no continuing coverage. If you are alleging WP:CIR issues on my part please take that to the appropriate forum along with diffs and evidence and refrain from unsubstantiated personal attacks.Selfstudier (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply false: [4],[https://www.radioj.fr/2021/06/30/en-samarie-evyatar-nouveau-test-pour-bennett/ Inf-in MD (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Speedy Keep WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply as it meets WP:EVENT specifically WP:DIVERSE [5],[6] also mentioned at Google Books [7] meets WP:LASTING as the outpost Evyatar was named after the victim and still mentioned even in 2021[8] so meets WP:PERSISTENCE.Mentioned in scholarly WP:RS https://www.academia.edu/7812490/Protracted_Social_Conflict_A_Fresh_Look_at_the_Theoretical_Approach_to_the_Study_of_Enduring_Social_Conflict] --Shrike (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply as it meets WP:EVENT specifically WP:DIVERSE, indeed. Good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious fail of WP:NOTNEWS, brief flurry of reports at the time and then no enduring coverage showing any sustained impact. nableezy - 17:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The attack got global coverage. Leaders of both Israel and Palestine made statements about it. It triggered multiple followup actions. Keep per WP:EVENT and WP:DIVERSE -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Edit warring, or close to it, is currently going on on this page in regards to whether or not it should be called a "terror attack". This AFD seems to have been born out of that conversation[9], but oddly doesn't refer to it. Instead in my opinion, this AFD gives the impression of throwing the kitchen sink at this article in the hopes that something sticks. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a classic case of forum shopping - they didn't get their way in the talk page discussion, so took it to AfD on spurious grounds. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt spurious, this article fails NOTNEWS. That a set of users are dedicated to in addition to violating our NOT policy also insist on violating our NPOV policy is not relevant to the AFD. Please dont disrupt the AFD further. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 21:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's spurious, and you don't understand WP:NEWS, either. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if editors would address the reasons for deletion, not kitchen sinks, allegations of edit warring, forum shopping and other irrelevancies.Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The spurious reasons were addressed - there is ongoing coverage, 8 years on, from multiple international outlets, and a clear indication of lasting impact. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that it spawned a series of retaliatory attacks and that an illegal settlement was named after the victim blows any WP:NOTNEWS argument to shreds. This very clearly meets WP:NEVENT. Mlb96 (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Evyatar. It is being claimed here that the naming of Evyatar after the victim supports the notability of the topic. That is already at Evyatar, but what is there could be expanded by another one or two sentences and that would be more than sufficient coverage of this everyday event. Zero^talk 01:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zero. Haaretz reported the other day 18 cases of Palestinians going about their business, smoking a cigarette, talking to a friend, etc. in no hostile context, who have been picked off by Israeli snipers just this year, with no explanation forthcoming. These killings are routine on the West Bank, but a number of editors leap to memorialize the (comparatively) rare cases where an Israeli is the victim.(WP:Systemic bias) One could, on the strength of this precedent, make an article on each Palestinian case as well, (adding as here how acquaintances thought the killed person was a nice guy etc) because they are widely reported. What was done was to note each incident in two lines in the relative village articles (see the entry for 7 murdered by Israeli snipers at Beita, Nablus over recent months, for example), as should be done here. Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:DIVERSE coverage for those events. Shrike (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. This article was created by an IP edit warrior on the same day as the incident itself, (just as I, were I to mimic this lamentable memorialization of victims on one side of the ethnic divide, could have done with the 18 Palestinian murders) and reportage since then has been almost zero, except as an occasional allusion, as editors noted above. The rules are being once more violated in favour of a Palestinians =terrorism promo game. Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. Example, killing of Mohammed Daadas on 5 November, which according to all the above should automatically have an article and has way more diverse international coverage than this article ever had:

A Rock Hit an Israeli Soldier. He Responded by Shooting at the Palestinian Protesters, Killing a Boy

Palestinians: 13-year-old dies by Israeli fire in West Bank

Israel troops kill teen in West Bank: Palestinian ministry

EU calls for investigation into murder of Palestinian teen

UNRWA is gravely concerned by the killing of a Palestine refugee child by Israeli live fire and plenty more besides these. In general, I have tended not to concern myself with these sort of events on the same grounds I argue for deletion here but since they are becoming more and more common (In 2021, the ISF killed 69 Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, including 27 refugees and 16 children by live ammunition) and noting the kind of argumentation being put forward here (and in other deletion discussions of similar material), I think I may well start putting up such articles.Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as ironical? There may indeed be a case for a general article on the regular IDF practice of killing unarmed Palestinian civilians pour encourager les autres, but we should rule out any 'retaliatory' mimicry of what policy decries, however much it is abused by articles like this one. I did it once, alerting beforehand an excellent admin, stating that my purpose was to write an article on one such IDF murder that would be immediately put up for deletion, in response to an article describing a parallel i ncident in which an Israeli was killed (which was under AfD discussion), stating that I wanted to verify how many 'voters' for 'keep' for the Israeli victim article would vote for 'delete' for the Palestinian victim article. H e thought this dishonest. I thought it was the only scientific way to show how bias exists in the group of editors who always show up with a lockstep 'keep' argument in this victim memorialization genre. I never repeated the experiment, having made my point.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In part, some of these killings are a bit beyond, so maybe some retaliatory mimicry is in order. The 69 is already up to 76 per https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties Also see 2021 Jerusalem shooting where the term "mass shooting" is being abused.Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One leads by example, not by mimicking practices we, in conformity with Wikipedia's rules on NOTNEWS and Memorial stubs, deplore. The only reason such articles exist is that the AfD usually has the same people voting for their retention. The 2021 Jerusalem shooting article should be up for deletion as well. Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Create that article if you think it meets notability requirements. Mlb96 (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obvious notablity. Lasting coverage and lasting effects such as outpost founded on site. Free1Soul (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shrike's points in particular. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is lasting coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:29, 30 November 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.