Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Shvut 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Shvut Rachel shooting[edit]

[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 - there are a large number of articles that were created in the immediate aftermath of some attack or shooting in the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and many of them were nominated for deletion at the time on the basis that these are news stories, not encyclopedia articles, and that there was no demonstration of any lasting impact. I think time has proven that to be correct, as there is no serious argument to be made that this shooting had any lasting impact or that serious sources note it. In 2015, Chicago had 2500 people shot, 470 homicides. AFAIK there are exactly 0 articles on any of them. Because they are, for the most part, news stories, and not encyclopedia articles. As is the case here. Nableezy 01:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per extensive coverage, good sourcing. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies as well, of course other shooting etc happens but that is also why this one is notable. As stated by the nominator most shootings get little or no coverage, this one has plenty for a reason. I mostly though fail to see what shootings in Chicago got to do with an incident in Israel. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a deadly and significant terrorist attack.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)_{Editor not allowed to comment here per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30}[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep. Not a valid nomination (WP:OSE) - certainly there are non-notable shootings (in Chicago and in the West Bank) - however there are also notable ones (in the West Bank, and yes, even in Chicago - e.g. Murder of Laquan McDonald). In this particular instance we have WP:SIGCOV which is WP:SUSTAINED - both in context of this case, and in relation to wider events in the period.Sep 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2016, Feb 2018, July 2018, June 2018 (and plenty more in the article - well and above what's needed for WP:NCRIME). Icewhiz (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, what? I cited WP:NOTNEWS as the rationale. If you think this compares Laquan McDonald, well then I dont know what to tell you. But you have written elsewhere that newspapers are WP:PRIMARY, do you have any significant coverage in secondary sources? nableezy - 16:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck speedy seeing you cited NOTNEWS - does not apply, as terrorist attacks are not routine events. News reporting, can, indeed be considered PRIMARY if close to the event. However, in this case, we have WP:SUSTAINED reporting - examples of which I pointed out above (had coverage been limited to 2015 - I would have !voted differently, however in this case we have extended coverage - including I would add some mentions in journal articles - e.g. Eiran, Ehud, and Peter Krause. "Old (Molotov) cocktails in new bottles?“Price-tag” and settler violence in Israel and the West Bank." Terrorism and political violence 30.4 (2018): 637-657.). Icewhiz (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions are significant coverage? nableezy - 16:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the articles I linked to above are full-length features on this event. Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 16:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the arguments provided by my predecessors, who and which I agree with, I am a little worried about the nomination for deletion on 4 articles from Category:Palestinian terrorism by one and the same editor, whose POV is well-known. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NCRIME, WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - echoing the above arguments, the subsequent coverage in the context of prisoner exchanges and the related access crackdowns suggest this had more notability than other tragic ongoing shootings. I did remove a section that seemed to be trying to bolster this shooting's notability by claiming causation of Ramadan crackdowns, but the sources didn't seem to show a direct correlation between the crackdowns and this event. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:07, 17 December 2018 (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.