Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eilat bakery bombing

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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eilat bakery bombing[edit]

Nonnotable terrorist attack in Israel that killed three people. If there was a page on every such attack, there would be hundreds of pages. KazakhPol 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N multiple instances of non-trivial coverage already cited in the article. Alternatively would also support a merge and redirect if there's a sensible target. cab 06:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:POV, WP:NOR and, crucially for inclusion, WP:V. In addition to the sources already cited, I was able to find this in seconds. A Google news search for "Eilat" presents plenty of others [1]. Of course there have been a great many instances of bloodshed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, I don't see any reason not to maintain articles on those instances where multiple independent reliable sources exist. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also added sources for each of the "International reactions". -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do wonder if it's useful to have an article on each and every separate incident that occurs in a long-running conflict. We're not talking about the Battle of the Somme or the Dayton Accords or something that has large-scale notability. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I count myself as a staunch deletionist, but WP:NOTABILITY goes hand-in-hand with, and is directly descended from, WP:VERIFIABILITY. Where so many reliable sources exist, and where key policies are so rigidly obeyed, I really can't think of reason for deletion. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the very nucleus of much of present day international relations and I think it would be a great disservice not to document it in great detail, provided that our coverage is objective and thoroughly verified. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge into List of terrorist incidents or other appropriate article). And I'm an inclusionist! Per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not the news. We don't need a hash-by-hash event of everything that happens in the Middle East. Part Deux 07:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reply a sec, WP:NOT#OR is the section of that policy that deals with News Reports, and what it specifies is that Wikipedia should not offer firsthand news reports because Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, this article is not offering firsthand reports, but is rather collecting information from previously published reports, and thus is not acting as a primary source for the story. WP:NOT#OR nowhere specifies that otherwise well referenced articles from major publications about current events should be deleted. Dugwiki 22:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge. Chris 08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did a "reverse merge" from Eilat into this article; I think that's the right solution. I think Wikipedia may have a tendency to evolve, and sometimes news events can sprout articles which turn out to be about nothing special. I think's it's too early to tell, and because of the fact that this is an incident after months of calm, and in a new location, I say keep it. YechielMan 08:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per IslaySolomon and also YechielMan. "and because of the fact that this is an incident after months of calm, and in a new location, I say keep it." Mathmo ^Talk 13:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Speedy Keep. very notable attack, no grounds for deletion. [2] Amoruso 13:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is done in the midst of Palestinian factional violence, and was committed by the Palestinian rival factions -- Hamas AND Fatah together. The incident has a lot of history and background to be considered that is not mentioned yet. I am still compiled many news sources and others and it will be much longer. It is also important to note that this was the first suicide attack that both Hamas and Fatah claimed together as a way to end recent Palestinian factional violence and redirect it at Israel. Keep. --Shamir1 15:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Individual attacks in or around the world should not deserve their own page unless it has gotten a much wider news coverage. Merge it to where it can be preserved. SynergeticMaggot 19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple referenced published sources for notability. Also, fyi, I cleaned up the references in the article, putting them in a reference section using ref tags. Dugwiki 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable GabrielF 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The simple fact of the attack doesn't make it notable. Pretty much every death on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is reported, but rarely are they notable enough to warrant their own articles. The reason for 'keep' on this one is the possible Egypt connection that was reported. This is significant, and could really go somewhere, so the article ought to stick around just in case something turns up about Egypt. The Behnam 19:06, 2 February 2007 (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.