Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing

Add links
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While the deletes outnumber the keeps by a small margin, there doesn't seem to be a strong enough consensus to justify any definitive action with this article. Both sides have compelling arguments. Additionally, the incident happened very recently, and new information is still coming out about it. This article was created on the day of the incident, and the AfD was started 8 hours after the article was created (which is discouraged by WP:RAPID for this very reason). There will be a better opportunity for a stronger consensus to emerge after the dust settles. If there are still concerns about the article, I'd suggest renominating in a month or two. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 23:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing

2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing (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)

Article about a recent stabbing. No indication that it will receive WP:SUSTAINED coverage or have any enduring encyclopedic value. Likely fails WP:EVENT, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:PERSISTENCE.- MrX 20:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC) - MrX 20:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: if you choose delete, please remember to delete the edit notice. El_C 23:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. - MrX 20:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. - MrX 20:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is a terror attack receiving significant coverage in international media- bbc nyt, reutets, cnn, etc etc. Also local. Seeing the 2017 st petersburg metro bombing has an entry, there is reason to treat this terror event differently. The article itself is well sourced and well written. Probably both the article and the afd should've waited a few days.Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, as I said on the article's talk page, that many editors who work on Israel-related articles on are observing the Passover holiday, which continues through Wednesday, and are not editing at present. As are many Israeli journalists. I suggested there that we should wait to hold this discussion until the country returns from holiday.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per usual. by this I mean that it has become normal to keep articles about terrorist attacks because they generate substantive international coverage, as is the case here.( cf. 2017 Paris machete attack, 2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers, etc.) Nom gives a WP:CRYSTAL argument for deletion, but, Note that in fact terrorist attacks tend to be revisited and referenced going forward, in this case, it is likely to be part of the growing attention being paid to suicide by soldier, in which, as Shin Bet is suggesting here, an already suicidal perp commits a terrorist attack in order to achieve a socially approved, even lauded, death. Note also, as I have argued before at AFD, that it is far easier to create articles on these incidents soon after they occur - and sources are available without access to paywalled archives - rather than to hope that someone goes back years later to create an article when an incident like the 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack or the 1996 Paris Métro bombing comes back into the news.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Some content to Jerusalem Light Rail as per the discussion ongoing at Talk:2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing#Proposed merge with Jerusalem Light Rail. I see no reason this particular incident is more notable than any other unfortunate murder. AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stick a knife in this one, it's done. I think it's time we reevaluate the notability of terrorist attacks in general, since this is one AFD too many for such articles. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Stick a knife" in this account: you're an indef blocked sockpuppet of DisuseKid. Striking through your !vote and comments.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article fails WP:NOTNEWS and, by definition, WP:LASTING, but those policies are dead and never applied anyway. I'll note three things. First, there is already a page List_of_violent_incidents_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict,_2017, which deals with violent incidents of all kinds. Of those, only some incidents are given wide coverage and people create articles on them, but that situation is so normal that it's not even worth talking about. Second: the motives of the attacker are not totally clear; he seems to be mentally unstable and had a history of sexual abuse. Lastly, technically the creator of this page shouldn't be creating pages at all in this area, since they don't meet WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. The latter is not too important; I'm sure someone else would have created the page if not for them. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just imagine how stupid would it be to actually have this attack as a stand-alone article in a written encyclopedia. This attack hasn't yet generated any significant outcome. It is only that a foreign resident was killed, so obviously some British newspapers and other international sources would care. I also don't see a reason for this incident to be recorded on the rail's article, especially not in more than one sentence. The community should start having a consensus to start articles on recent terror attacks rather than having a consensus to remove them, we always have someone starting an article and then thanks to democracy, which is not the way of Wikipedia, we end up with countless articles about incidents that usually generate news reports because the media likes to support terrorism by popularizing it and enjoy ad revenue. The only reason for this article and other simmilar articles to exist is that there is "major news coverege" on that matter, but that's not enough to justify a Wikipedia article.
If we look at the article we have and remove the section headlines, it really looks like no other than a news article:
News article in Wikipedia
The attack occurred at about 1:00 pm April 14, 2017, as a knife-welding man stabbed a 23 years old British tourist. An off-duty police officer riding the light rail pulled an emergency brake and tackled the perpetrator, who was then arrested.

According to Israel's domestic security service, Shin Bet, the attacker was known to the authorities and this may have been a “suicide by soldier,” a phenomenon seen in other incidents in the last 18 months, "in which a Palestinian suffering from mental health or personal issues has chosen to carry out an attack as a way out of his problems."

Stabbing attacks were rare in Israel in 2017, although there was a spate of them in the fall of 2015 and early 2016. The attack took place as crowds of pilgrims form around Israel and the world gathered in the center of Jerusalem ot celebrate Good Friday.[5]

The attacker was Gamil Tamimi (57), a Palestinian Arab from the Ras al-Amud neighborhood of East Jerusalem who was known to security services had recently been released from a mental health facility where he was treated for attempted suicide.

In 2011 Tamimi was convicted of molesting his daughter.

Hannah Bladon, a 21-year-old student in Israel on an exchange program from the University of Birmingham was killed in the attack.

Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Radical Islamic terrorism is striking world capitals. Regretfully, terrorism struck today in Israel's capital – Jerusalem." Israeli President Reuven Rivlin said “The bitter news of the young woman’s death in a terror attack in Jerusalem fills me with deep sorrow.”

Mark Regev Israeli ambassador to the UK, said: “My thoughts are with the family and friends of UK student Hannah Bladon, who was murdered in a senseless act of terror in Jerusalem today."
Per WP:LASTING, this article is also too early, though I strongly believe it won't have any significant impact with encyclopedic value in the future. The attack didn't generate any big controversy, there isn't a big, complicated story here, there was no real response, millitary, legal or whatever, that followed this attack, only shock and grief.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that some news media have now responded to your comment [;-)] by ginning up a controversy around the fact that perp is entitled to a monthly stipend paid by the Palestinian Authority from a budget subsidized by British taxpayers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no comment on whether the event is notable or not, but per E.M.Gregory's comment I think the discussion should be put on hold until more experienced editors from Israel get to comment on the issue. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Content decisions can and should be determined by consensus of all editors, not a special group of editors.- MrX 13:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are supposed to run for a week, so they will have plenty of time anyway. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, which is still a policy (or so I've been told) and policies trump guidelines (or so I've been told). — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kееp WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here is not "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities".Its meets WP:CRIME as "high-profile criminal act" and WP:DIVERSE--Shrike (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike, please read the full policy of the pages you adduce, for instance the advice on that policy page to refrain from creating articles on the strength of breaking news. It's just below the section you cite.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read it.But you maybe missed WP:RAPID--Shrike (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per arguments made by Shrike, and others.Juneau Mike (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This will be, as usual, voted in. The policies are clear, and it is in violation of them all, and none cited here have any other function than to give the impression this has something to do with policy. The only principle governing these articles is that any act of lethal violence undertaken by a Palestinian against a non-Palestinian has encyclopedic value. It's a form of politics on Wikipedia that survives by inattention to the clear evidence of our guidelines. Shrike for example reverts out this as non violent from thelist, an episode widely reported as causing a sick Palestinian child's death by deliberate medical neglect because they could not extort from him information about his neighbours (here,here,here here, here,here, here etc.) The incident is widely reported. This cannot even be listed as as form of extortionate violence leading to a death. One could, as is being done in this article, compose an article on the case and hope it would not be deleted. No. Responsible editors refrain from that because, however tragic, indeed evil, the incident may have been, it fails wiki criteria for notability, as does most of the daily thuggery in that area, which is best left to lists. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Isn't there a list this can go on? There doesn't seem to be enough to say about it to warrant an independent page, and I don't forsee significant additions being made to the content in the future. There is the same problem in some articles about terror attacks in Turkey where there isn't enough to say to meet notability guidelines, just a one-day news event. Fortunately Wikiproject Israel has a couple of pretty comprehensive lists this data could be added to. The category Kurdistan Workers' Party attacks has 6 articles. Palestinian terrorism has 169 pages and an additional 7 subcategories. Agree, "The only principle governing these articles is that any act of lethal violence undertaken by a Palestinian against a non-Palestinian has encyclopedic value" Seraphim System (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that In fact, when sources exist to support notability, we add incidents to a list AND keep the article, cf. Zürich Islamic center shooting, 2017 Paris machete attack, etc.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I don't think a one day news event constitutes sources to support notability. If in the future this attack is studied in further secondary sources, and becomes significant in terrorism studies for any number of reasons editors have listed above (including policy changes, military action, or some other widely covered social significance like the gay pride stabbing) - then it could be added. Maybe it's too soon, but not every stabbing in every city in every country of the world meets notability guidelines only because it was covered briefly in news sources. Seraphim System (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per excellent arguments by Bolter, Nishidani and Seraphim. --NSH001 (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion arguments based on the assertion that this article is sourced to "a one day news event" have been obviated by events in the days since the attack, including perp's mental status exam, widely covered public memorials at sporting events in Britain, and a developing controversy regarding British taxpayer subsidy of monthly stipend paid to this and other terrorism-motivated attackers by the Palestinian Authority.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. You specialize in these silly articles, that can be summed up in any one of our numerous lists in 3-4 lines. I like many other editors could make several articles a month on similar things occurring to Palestinians - for every Israeli killed by this violence, several Palestinians are shot in very dubious circumstances, many in violation of Israel's obligations as a belligerent occupant of their land - but there is a general agreement among several of us that we should not imitate the POV pushing bad practice being used to promote unilaterally an Israel-the-victim-of-Palestinian terrorism mentality on Wikipedia. As long as drifting editors unfamiliar with this state of defiance of clear protocols continue to lazily vote instead of examining the merits, this crap will stay in, and consolidate wiki's repute for its WP:systemic bias in the I/P area.Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. This article helps demonstrate a clear concern on what's happening abroad. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning everything should have an article on Wikipedia. If you are familiar with policy (WP:AGF), you should be familiar with WP:NOTNEWS. Not one remark by those promoting this 'stuff' seriously addresses that issue, and the detailed policy guidelines regarding what is of long-term encyclopedic interest, and what is just a blip in a news cycle. Get out of the toxic I/P mental framework of battling to promote a POV, and apply the reasoning used here, and you would get a wiki article on this, this, this,this,this, this, etc.etc. The only reason this is covered is that it is the Middle east conflict and involves an Arab Palestinian. All the other incidents occur in the US, and everywhere else in the world every day, and do not rate as articles. That is what WP:Systemic bias is all about. It's quite disgraceful, but worse, a deliberate abuse of wiki space to push a POV.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the question. What you are saying is that an attack by a known Arab militant, or a personal suspected of being motivated by ISIS gets coverage (I'm fine with that), therefore any attack by any Arab on a non-Arab must get coverage, even if he's a suicidal psychiatric patient, though we do not give coverage to any of the daily knifings by Americans, Italians (3 every week recently), English 'ordinary people', etc. The conceptual distinction is clear, and wiki excludes the latter.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those who write these articles on Arabs never write articles like
US airstrike on Al Jinnah mosque bombing, 45 civilians (Syria) (2017)
US Boz bombing of 33 Afghani civilians (2016)
US aistrike kills 33 Afghani civilians at Azizabad (2008)
10 Yemeni civilians killed in US airstrike 2017
From the perspective of those massacred (these events occur regularly once or twice a month, and have done so for over a decade) such attacks out of the blue are seen as we see the terrorist attacks we make articles on. In this Wikipedia is not global, but angloamericocentric, reflecting its own news and political interests. Anù the selectivity is quite deliberate, to promote a victimized by Arabs mentalityNishidani (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith. and refrain form personal attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia guidelines are that we follow the sources. Sources exist to support this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I do assume good faith, let me refer you once again to WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS - most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion - if you are writing on human shields and looking up citations from 10 years ago as research for your topic, most likely that is appropriate. If your peer-reviewed or specialist secondary sources cite news articles for a particular issue, most likely it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you are posting an article that is entirely about a single news story, which is not covered by any significant scholarship outside news reports, most likely, that is not appropriate. Seraphim System (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mere existence of sources does not necessitate the creation of an independent article. WP:Notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.- MrX 21:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intense coverage supports keeping the article; the British press has been all over this story. As do the precedents I list above. WP:RAPID also applies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Bolter et al. I bet this one will be going to Deletion review. In the future, for best results, wait until thing has blown over before XFDing it. Easier. L3X1 (distant write) 21:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable but, for the most part, it doesn't work the other way around. Experienced editors need to have common sense about notability; independent news coverage immediately after the event does not make this notable. Stabbings happen (sadly) on the regular but they do not become articles. This is what policies are for people, come on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I argued for its inclusion in List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017, but not every such news story deserves its own article. El_C 23:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki to WikiNews per Bolter21's reasoning, without prejudice against creation of a Wikipedia article should WP:LASTING effects occur. There's really nothing here beyond a summary of the events and the condemnations by various dignitaries. As it is, it's a bit awkward that this was created and nominated on the day of the event, as it's too soon to tell if it will fulfill LASTING, but considering the frequency of terrorist incidents that happen in the Middle East, I'm leaning towards no. Daß Wölf 00:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and institute clear guideline to ban wikiwashing campaigns and that obvious acts of terrorism are always notable, and not covered by the NOT NEWs which is always brought out everytime there is a terrorist attack. There should be an article on the increasing trend to stage terrorist attacks as "routine" crimes by mentally unstable people which appears to be a common and deliberate tactic of clandestine warfare. It is absurd to claim that even if the Israeli government declares an act of terrorism, it should not be covered as an act of terrorism by wikipedia. "unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable " In fact, the opposite should be true, when in Israel, every attack by an arab on a non-Arab is instantly recognized as a terrorist attack, elsewhere in the world, every similar attack when there is no other obvious motive should be recognized as a possible terrorist attack, instead of being instantly deleted as "routine news". Many terrorist sprees such as Ali Muhammad Brown killing two gay men and a student and the D. C. sniper attacks started out as "routine" murders with absolutely no evidence suggesting a terrorist motive. Indeed in the case of Shooting of Robert Godwin, if this was an arab killing a Jews in Israel, there would be no doubt as to motive, yet in the United States, no source suggests any possibility of a political motive when it is always an obvious possibility. Bachcell (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bachel just curious how do you conclude this is an "obvious" act of terrorism when even the very article your voting to keep and current news sources state it is a possible act of terror? This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is not a news source: editors tend to assume things that are not verified yet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While we are pontificating on the lacunae of law, how did you arrive at the conclusion that motive is an element of a crime? You must be confusing motive with intent, and there is significant doubt, not only in the United States, but also in Israel, as to how this line of jurisprudence should develop. If you are talking of terrorism as a specific intent crime, it may not be what you were hoping for. While I support discussing current scholarship and legal developments about this on the relevant pages, we need to be sensitive to the BLPCRIME restriction in ongoing criminal cases. Seraphim System (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
El_C made a good point here regarding his confessed motivation. The problem is he contradicted himself in other reports (Ynet) by saying:'(I)"didn't mean it," and apologized to Bladon's family when asked to comment.' Given his mental condition, I would expect any number of self-contradictory statements to emerge like this, and therefore intent or motivation will be, as often in such cases, almost impossible to nail down, and you will have contradictory input and clashing assessments from psychaitrists depending on whose version they are called to testify about. Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a crystal ball, but maybe the case will be notable, if there are significant legal developments. The fact pattern seems to be developing in an unusual way. I still think delete is best for now, without prejudice to recreating the article if it satisfies notability in the future. Seraphim System (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pr WP:NOTNEWS, Huldra (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I don't see any persistence behind this story; just a crazy person with a knife:
  • "attacker had been arrested at the scene and is believed to suffer from mental illness" link.
K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by multiple sources - e.g. [2] - shin-bet has stated: “This is another incident of many in which a Palestinian suffering from mental health or personal issues has chosen to carry out an attack as a way out of his problems,”. Just because he had issues (he attacker after calling members of his family which refused contact due to the sexual molestation of family members) - doesn't meeting this wasn't terror (it has been labeled as terror by the relevant authorities) - as such an attack is a way to redeem one-self religiously and socially - and multiple terrorists (both in this wave and in previous waves) had a desire to die - just they decide to die killing out non-Palestinians and not by jumping off a roof or in front of train - this is a statistically significant phenomena, which isn't new - Pedahzur, Ami, Arie Perliger, and Leonard Weinberg. "Altruism and fatalism: The characteristics of Palestinian suicide terrorists." Deviant Behavior 24.4 (2003): 405-423 [3], and is exhbitied in other places as well - e.g. the Charlie Hebdo attackes [[4]] and the Bataclan attackers had an assortment of personal issues as well - [5]. The existence of a pre-existing motive to die does not preclude terror - to the contrary, this is a definite characteristic of many of the attackers in many such attacks (by Palestinians and non-Palestinians).Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should merge this article into Suicide attack per above comment Seraphim System (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - a moment of silence was held for for the victim at a Derby County game, which received wide coverage - for instance BBC - [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Continued coverage (including the moment of silence mentioned above) prove the article meats WP:SUSTAINED and WP:LASTING. Rami R 08:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are many WP:RS establishing notability. This was an international incident with international coverage. OtterAM (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I am strongly against the idea of merging the articles. The other article, Jerusalem Light Rail, has a different and much broader focus, and doesn't have enough room in it for the information contained in this article. OtterAM (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. OtterAM (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS, Attacks like this by the IDF happen all the time against Palestinians but never get their own article so why should this? Mention it on List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017. I agree 100% with Nishidani that attacks like these against Arabs never get the level of attention that attack perpetrated by Arabs get. Not saying this was intentional bad faith by the creator of the article but it's just how the world works. Perhaps, the issue lies more in that people aren't wiling to make an article where Arabs are the victim rather than the other way around. Consistency is all I ask for. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that today's headlines "Palestinian who stabbed British woman to death ruled fit for trial" [7], makes it clear that far from being the single news cycle event asserted by multiple editors above, coverage will continue as perp is tried and sentenced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. Every crime leads to a scheduled trial, ergo, every crime must have a wiki article because the time gap between the event and the court trial makes it a 'durable' reality! Jeezus. Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly if it is reported by WP:DIVERSE sources.--Shrike (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike, you mentioned WP:DIVERSE above, and are repeating yourself after I asked you to actually read that policy. I'll plug it down here to ensure you do.
'Similarly, where a single story or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information on repeating news coverage from elsewhere (for example, "AP reported that ..."), this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability (see Wikipedia:Bombardment).
Wikipedia:Bombardment Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that a subject is notable if there are multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This suggests that an article bristling with sources should be safe. However, not all sources are equally valuable. A source may be reliable, but only cover a subject in a trivial manner, and if a subject is covered only by trivial mentions then it may not be notable no matter how many of them there are (see WP:BASIC).
For example, single events may be given bursts of news coverage in hundreds of newspapers around the world, prompting hundreds of news articles published on a single day. From the next day, not a single news source can be found. Even if coverage continues for a period of time, local interests are not always viewed as encyclopedic.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are ongoing diverse reliable sources - it should be in wikipedia. Just like Murder of Carol Cole (single victim, by stabbing) is for instance. We should not judge why the international (and local) media ascribe significance to Jihad inspired murders (particularly of young white women - even more so when the killing is on Good Friday in Jerusalem) - it is clear that they do, hence there is a place for an article. Those complaining about the coverage, should complain to NYT [8], WP [9], BBC [10], the Guardian [11], Haaretz [12], thousands+ article (hard to asses GNEWSHITS when they are over 100,000 supposed top-line (which is incorrect and includes potentially links to from other places) etc etc - it is not our place to judge why others consider this noteworthy, but to assess the noteworthiness ascribed to the incident by others. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'it is not our place to judge why others consider this noteworthy'.

Actually it is our job to judge why editors think this kind of event. but not similar incidents occurring to Palestinians or Arabs, is noteworthy. It's PR for one party in a conflict, obviously. For several years, every day an incident like this arises, I have seen two or three editors, usually the same folks jump on it, write it up as an article, and then defend it at the inevitable AfDs. That these articles are written within hours of the event, before anyone knows if it may pass durability-over-time evidence, is prima facie evidence that policy is being systematically ignored, in order to get wiki space for another murderous Arab incident. Many get deleted by consensus for all the reasons given above. Quite a few slip through because many passing editors have no knowledge of this practice in the I/P area. It's a simple game. Incident+victim+death or trial of attacker, reactions: you can bloat that into a page, or sum it up in 4/5 lines. There is no POV pushing in the deletionist approach. The only neutral way to handle this is a chronological list, summarizing every incident of violence by whichever party, as has been done. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTADVOCATE Your argument, that Israel/Palestinian - related articles must be judged by different standards than articles about other parts of the world is against policy. Palestinians don't get their own special rules. And we are not here to Right Great Wrongs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • non-Palestinian terrorist attacks also get created same day - e.g. - 2017 Fresno shootings which was created within hours of the event, and several others (e.g. - 2016 Magnanville stabbing). These get created - because there is wide coverage in reliable sources of the events, with the usually reasonable expectation that the coverage will be continuing.Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They get created because WP:NOTNEWS is dead, and has been for a long time. If you look at 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, it is entirely sourced to contemporary news reports in December 2015. There was a catchy phrase which was in the news at the time. Apart from that, there was a brief bit of news coverage in mid 2016 when the attacker was sentenced. That's basically it. Otherwise, the incident has no lasting impact. The same will be true of this event. But I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that these pages will continue to get created because a significant portion of the userbase wants these "breaking news" articles, and it is a significant driver of traffic and volunteers. It's fun to create a page which gets to the top of the Google search results immediately. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has, in fact, been ongoing coverage, cf :"Leytonstone Tube attack: Isil-inspired knifeman jailed for life after targeting strangers at Underground station "[13]. Plus brief discussions in at least 2 books [14] , [15], although the attack occurred just over a year ago. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can do a Google search as well. Apparently, it's hard to read what I wrote: Apart from that, there was a brief bit of news coverage in mid 2016 when the attacker was sentenced. None of the mentions in the books you cited are of any significance: they don't discuss the attack in any sort of detail (only a sentence or two). That does not count as "ongoing coverage". This is because the attack has had no lasting effect, just as I said. Your numbers are also wrong: the typical pageviews are about 500 a month, except for some spikes around mid 2016, and one during the recent Parliament attack. Look at the daily chart here: the typical daily pageviews are less than 20 a day. I don't know if readers find them "useful", and I am rather ambivalent about the whole matter, but Wikipedia should stop pretending that WP:NOTNEWS is policy, because it clearly is not. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity, Offhand, how many of the articles you have written on this topic have been deleted after AfDs? Quite a few, from memory.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nishidani: you seem to have an extremely poor memory. But I am happy to WP:AGF and point out to you that if you want to know this sort of thing, you can look at my editing record - or that of any editor - and find a list of all articles that I have created, with a notation of those that have been deleted. I trust that you will report back here on the number of articles in "this topic" that you find. By the way, how do you define "this topic"? I/P? Terrorism? Crime? After making that assertion, I do feel that you owe us an accurate report on how many articles I have created and how many have been deleted, on "this topic." And at what point in my editing career they were deleted? Also on how you iVoted and who nominated the articles for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just checked and I have created 359 articles since joining Wikipedia two years ago. I don't know how exactly many have been deleted partly because I find it convenient to live edit, and a few times I have deleted by blanking tha page of an article I began to create and thought better of (these showup as a deletions). he most recent deletion that shows up in a search is Basket of deplorables, an article I created only to see it deleted but which was soon recreated by another editor despite which it shows up as a deleted article, as do some other articles such as Kate Prusack (one of several candidate spouse articles that I created during last year's presidential campaign, but that was merged - not deleted, and Nebraska Book Award, which I created for the purpose of redirecting to Nebraska Center for the Book, but which shows up as deleted on the list of articles I have created.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A procedural question. This seems to be quite a partisan issue, with opinions more-or-less strictly down partisan lines. I was wondering, is there a procedure for getting more comments on this AfD from the general Wikipedia community outside these two sides? OtterAM (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point, and perhaps should be acted on. I insist however that this is not simply a partisan divide. It is true the same people make the same quick articles on incidents of Palestinian terrorism. It is also true that editors here systematically refuse to exploit hundreds of incidents where Palestinians are shot (dead or wounded) by Israeli 'policing actions'. To give one example of dozens, when a grocer Salem Shammaly, was shot dead in front of a video camera, and the clip went viral, and the incident widely reported, neither I nor others who have objected to this article rushed to exploit it. Using E.M. Gregory's methods, to do so would have been easy to cite
the New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald,Daily Mail,Mirror July 22 2014 The Mirror,The Guardian,Vice News,Al Jazeera,New Zealand Herald,Unispal,Newsweek, and even its durability 3 years later in books, i.e.Marouf Hasian Jr.Israel's Military Operations in Gaza: Telegenic Lawfare and Warfare Routledge, 2016 p.16, or other venues, such asTestimony of Eran Efrati that Golani soldiers shot the lad. or Max Blumenthal on Transcript a year later. 'We' don't do this kind of article except when coverage is massive and continued over time. E.M. Gregory starts these articles instantaneously using breaking news. The AfDs may look partisan, but there is a neat divide between the rule-ignoring behavior of those who exploit incidents where Palestinians are culpable of violence, in order to write articles, and the rule-observant behavior of editors who do not write week by week articles of Israeli killings of Palestinian civilians. In short the procedural question requires some administrative oversight on what the fuck do the policies cited for and against actually mean, since numerous editors read them selectively, or cites them without reading them, or construe them in ways antithetical to what other editors take them to mean. I don't think the Shammaly incident merits inclusion, like hundreds of other similar cases, often on video. Stuff like this fails WP:NOTNEWS, however tragic or shocking, but can qualify for a list.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Giving as an example the death of young man in the midst of a hot warzone during a very active war is quite different from the homocide of a peaceful woman not in a active warzone, who was clearly targeted (NOT collateral damage, but actual target) while having nothing to do with the conflict. In addition there are allegations that this particulsr viral video is faked / staged.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred during a ceasefire, arranged between the parties. Efrat interviewed the soldiers present when the sniper fired. The video was not faked. The 23 minutes of coverage was handed over to the mainstream newspapers, such as the NYTs, and nothing ever came of the 'allegation' a word always employed exclusively to incidents of filming where it would appear an innocent has been killed by the IDF.Nishidani (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
short ceasefires are frequently broken - especially when you are talking about a very hot spot which the site of a major battle - Battle of Shuja'iyya. The clip itself went viral for about 2 days. Later mentions were very scant - so there was no reason to investigate beyond the short newscycle ([17]). The killing of young men (of fighting age) is not terribly significant in a warzone in which some 2000+ died - and if it significant for a video of the death itself (which by itself shows little besides the death) - hard to say this is significant. In contrast incidents such as - 2014 Gaza war beach bombing incidents which involved children, filming, and continued coverage beyond a 2-3 day news cycle (and minor coverage by Efrat - which isn't exactly RS) - do have articles.Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you did have an article regarding the clip, the subject probably would have to be the clip - as a viral video, and not the shooting of Shammaly (both of these, and together, don't meet notability IMHO. The viral video had a lifespan of less than 3 days, and Shammaly or the killing of Shammaly even less). Some of the coverage didn't even mention Shammaly by name [18].Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The direct answer to your question, OtterAM, is that AfD discussions are advertised quite widely. Every one is listed centrally (in Category:AfD debates and in a subpage of WP:AFD), and most are also advertised to various interest groups. This AfD, for example, has been listed among the deletion discussions related to Israel, crime, terrorism, the UK, and events. If you can think of another list that may be appropriate to notify, please feel free, but please read WP:CANVASS first and be neutral in your invitation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record: I did not create this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - additional coverage from 19-20th April - [19][20] fund raising campaign for Bladon family, [21] coverage of warning sent to Bladon of a "killer on the loose" by a friend - after Bladon had been stabbed - and other comments by flatmates (exchange students) in Jerusalem, [22] stabber mentally fit for trial, [23] Coverage in a weekly Hungarian paper.Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+ coverage from a christian angle due to Good Friday - [24] from the 18th.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that some of the participants on this page give it a rest? I count about 18 comments from E.M.Gregory, 13 comments from Nishidani and 10 comments from Icewhiz. I think you have all made your points pretty well. From my experience, I can say with a pretty high probability that you're all wasting your breath anyway. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Meets WP:NCRIME per; media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources and WP:Notability per; "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Just some of the many different available sources; CNN, ABC News which also links to multiple other sources including BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald, etc, etc. Many many Israli sources including Times of Israel. All of these have provided more than a simple one paragraph repeat of every other source. There's also more minor mentions like this one in the WashingtonPost. To put this a little further, there's a requirement for reliability which should be self-evidently met, but, look at the sources for yourself. Sources are both secondary and independent of the subject. Now, this gives it presumed notability which is not the same as notability as some would be quick to point out. Because of that, it makes sense to address some of the arguments for deleting the article presented above.
    Argument 1 WP:SUSTAINED; That is something of a WP:CRYSTALBALL assumption, but, a credible one. I think it'll last a little bit longer than your "run of the mill" attack given that a British exchange student is the victim and thus forces international coverage. There might be some greater implications than a random stabbing attack on a local would. The same reasoning applies to WP:PERSISTENCE as well. Argument 2 - "likely fails WP:EVENT + + +"; from the guideline itself This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Same crystalballing being applied as the first argument. But, again, the argument to keep is crystalballing in the opposite direction. Argument 3 - WP:GEOSCOPE; obviously does not apply given international coverage due to death of British student. This is not local news, its gone international. Argument 4 - WP:NOTNEWS; ... editors are encouraged ... and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. There's no guideline or policy on what constitutes "significant", but, there are a couple of essays on it that really don't do anything to help (e.g. WP:SIGNIFICANT and WP:CCSI). I think WP:DIVERSE applies here and that it suffices to establish significance per; Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable which of course if this is being reported in Israeli, US, British, Australian and even German sources is more than enough to meet "diverse". These sources aren't just word for word repeats of each other either, but, they do cover the same general gist of what has happened. Argument 5 - An unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable but, for the most part, it doesn't work the other way around. That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument of Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. In this case, that is not a credible argument for deleting. Lastly I'll tackle WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS; again, this does not apply. It has nothing to do with; routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Other than that there are quite a few more delete arguments which are "per somebody else".
    It makes greater sense to me to look at the WP:MURDEROF essay (even though it's a bit more than just a murder) which links to a variety of guidelines and policies most of which have been mentioned here but only one which I think needs close inspection; "Persistence". I think the strongest argument for delete is WP:PERSISTENCE specifically because; Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. To extend this back to "Murder of", persistence is met if at least some of the following happens; Some factors that may lead to a murder being notable include a large volume of coverage beyond the local area of its occurrence and continuing for a lengthy period of time thereafter, a highly publicized investigation or trial, an article about the case in a magazine long after the case has been closed, coverage on a TV series, a movie or documentary being made about the case, a new forensic technique being used to solve the crime, a law being passed as a result of the crime, or other lasting effects. I've emphasized one point which has already been met. The trial is already being lightly publicized; fit to stand for trial. Whether or not the trial itself gets any attention is a matter for when the trial comes along. It's still in the news cycle and may or may not be as notable in a week, month, or year from now. My feeling on this is that while it won't be a huge deal it already is more than a minor local affair. I think because of this, the article merits inclusion on the encyclopaedia. Side-issue; There is a lot of, to be honest, useless nonsense written above that is entirely distracting from the issue. I have to endorse Kingsidian's comment about "giving it a rest". Mr rnddude (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, I couldn't have said that better myself. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the extensive argument above, this is news. That it gained coverage is no surprise (though a "lightly publicized trail" isn't much), but that this coverage makes it an encyclopedic article, I dispute that. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, sorry about that. I am not good at condensing an argument into something short and solid. I always find things to add and expand till eventually it's a solid mass of words arguing part for and part against my position. Well, if it was informative in any way than that's good enough for me. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. I respect people who actually do some work round here by actually examining the details, though I disagree with your conclusions. I would note that no article has been done (rightly so, it's not politically sexy enough) on this incident, which I noted while catching up on the backlog. If you examine it, it is identical to the incident in this article up for deletion or otherwise. It received a few news reports in Israel and Palestinian sources, not abroad. The difference is that the incident treated in this article we are discussing affected a foreign woman. The motivation appears to be otherwise identical, an attempt to get killed by killing someone. I agree with Drmies. Both deserve registration in a few lines in the appropriate list, but fail our criteria for durability.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, no apology necessary. Just be glad I didn't write you my essay on NOTNEWS! (It's in heroic couplets.) Drmies (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per arguments made by Shrike, and others.--Jobas (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV. This article is used by some of the more vocal defenders / editors of the article to further an agenda. Notice edits like this from last hour, re-adding "terrorism" wherever possible (including the navbox for "Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2010s", even though this was highly uncertain as a terrorist attack, and not against an Israeli, adding categories like Category:Mass stabbings (as explained multiple times, there was no "mass" stabbing here) and Category:Palestinian terrorism (which seems to be the main reason why this article was created and must be kept separately at all costs). This is a minor incident, probably not an actual terrorist attack but simply a deranged, deluded murder, which gets hyped up to further a political agenda. We shouldn't play along with such games. If it has real, lasting repercussions beyond one very sad death and one trial, it is time to revisit this. Until then, this shouldn't be on enwiki. Fram (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that if User:Fram had read the article he would have seen that perp has already undergone psychiatric examination and been judged competent to stand trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, you really need to read the article again, and this time more thoroughly. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please both keep your insulting remarks to yourself. Cyrus the Penner, you are the one claiming on the article talk page "Agreed. Mainstream media hasn't exactly been reliable these days, so there should be some reliance on editors' good faith to share more accurate information that is being neglected. ", so I don't think I have to take any lessons from you in how wikipedia should deal with this kind of subject. I'll take my advice from neutral readers and editors, not from partisans like you two. Fram (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Jerusalem Light Rail for now. Saw this article referenced on AN/I. At this time I think the attack fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWS. If at some point in the future there are additional attributes that make it worth an article, then it can be revisited. Coretheapple (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Changing to keep on the basis of this Daily Mail article and others that I had not seen when evaluating this article originally. That pushes it into "keep" territory in my opinion due to the political repercussions in Britain from the payment. Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose such a merge for 2 reasons. 1.) as I have argued with school shootings, merging places WP:UNDUE emphasis on a single foul incident in an article about a major institution, and 2.)it is not done with attacks on trains/trams in cities worldwide and attacks in Jerusalem should be judged by the same standards we apply to attacks in other cities.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I would delete, again, without prejudice to the facts ultimately justifying an article. At this point it seems clearly not to be more than a news event, a terror incident in which there were not mass casualties. Coretheapple (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Striking out as I've changed my !vote to keep. Coretheapple (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. There may have been few casualties in this event, but these kinds of events (no matter what the casualty count is) always find their way back into the news cycle, always whenever a new terror attack occurs and WP:RS brings up previous attacks as a sort of comparison. That on its own implies long-term notability. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple: I read the Daily Mail article, and I don't see any political repercussions. Firstly, it cites Palwatch, which is a worthless source. Secondly, even as the Palwatch head says, there is absolutely nothing new in the practice; it is routine. Thirdly, if the UK government actually stops aid to the Palestinian Authority or something, that would meet the criterion of political repercussions. Right now, it's just the Mail bloviating about how UK taxpayer money is funding terrorism (big surprise that the Mail would take this line /sarcasm). Any supposed political repercussions are just WP:CRYSTAL, in my opinion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but then there is 2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers which was a nonfatal assault and notable enough for an article, and 2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers, ditto. I read the news every day and I don't even recall those two. Yeah, I know, "other stuff exists," but this shows how we handle such things. And of course, the Taylor Force indicent, 2016 Tel Aviv stabbings. So I think keeping the article would be consistent with this practice, especially given the payment and all that entails. The world will not end with either outcome of this discussion and really wish people would get a grip. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It clearly meets WP:N/CA and WP:GNG. - GalatzTalk 17:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per NOTNEWS. Run of the mill terror incident in which one person was killed with a primitive weapon without tangential social impact. Lionized here, as is often the case, because it is an example of Palestinian-on-Israeli violence. Carrite (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coretheapple and Carrite set up standards "run of the mill" and "not mass casualties," but because of the 28 articles listed in Stabbing as a terrorist tactic, only the 2014 Kunming attack seems to have had mass casualties - indeed many of the listed attacks had no casualties except perp - this appears to be a case of editors arbitrarily applying a standard to attacks in Jerusalem that are not applied to attacks elsewhere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLUDGEON, bludgeon, bludgeon, bludgeon, bludgeon, bludgeon, and then clobber some more for good measure. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTNEWS is a dead letter because WikiNews has flopped. To see a fresh example of this, compare our coverage of the recent Paris shooting with theirs – a bare single sentence. Our core principles of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR work better than theirs when it comes to digesting the world's news. Such cases are certainly notable and notability does not expire. Our other policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:CENSOR then apply. Andrew D. (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this reasoning. Are we going to create articles on events such as this or this (both comfortably pass WP:GNG criteria)? Wikipedia and Wikinews are fundamentally different projects, and it's not up to one to pick up the slack of the other. Daß Wölf 00:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feminist, I will have to redirect you to the below comment by Icewhiz. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage on a routine incident, yawn. feminist 03:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Continuing on-going coverage from 20th-22nd April - [25] Coverage of salary killer will receive from the Palestinian Authority due to his act of "resistence", [26] - another moment of silence by UK football team. [27] - British hotel turning down screening of a film honoring a Palestinian terrorists following Blandon's murder in a Palestinian terror attack. [28] - Coverage of the Palestinian Authority's attempt to glorify a convicted Palestinian terrorist in London in the wake of the murder of Blandon.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- It clearly meets WP:N/CA and WP:GNG - in my experiance, wp:not news is almost never followed here (unless there is a clash with the projects bias) and so needs reviewing, the project is so big now that it is impossible to stop editors reporting what is in the immediate press, the position is there are multiple wp:rs so I can republish it here.Govindaharihari (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
due to WP:SIGCOV. Why do news outlets cover terror attacks more than other murders? Perhaps the general public is more concerned with people who are out to kill them to make a point (as issue also with insane mass murderers) - and less concerned with people who have a specific motive to kill a particular person (due to a dispute) or are attempting to commit robbery (usually death avoidable if you fork over your cash). In any event - the terrorist stabbing in Jerusalem, as other terrorist attacks elsewhere, has received very wide coverage - leading to WP:SIGCOV and meeting WP:CRIME. Two UK football clubs have decided to honor the victim with a moment of silence - not done for any random murder victim.Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The terrorist attack... The terrorist attack..." you remind us breathlessly, yet it seems every reliable source points to him having mental health and suicide issues. "...psychiatric examiners judged him mentally fit to stand trial." You say "People who are out to kill them to make a point." Yet there's zero evidence of him having any kind of "point". It could still be a notable Insanity defense attack, however. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was coverage of the San Francisco stabbing in LA Times, People magazine, the Guardian, the Independent, Seattle Times, etc. for more than a month. But I doubt that anybody here (including myself) believes the San Francisco stabbing should have its own article. Jrheller1 (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 07:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bolter and Seraphim, or Merge into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as suggested above. Tragic as this attack is, it's not an event of encyclopedic proportions and doesn't need an article of its own. Yintan  10:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only reason this tragic but run-of-the-mill news item has an article is because of where it occurred and the ethnicity of the perpetrator. The bludgeoning of dissenting opinions by some editors here (which I note is amongst the reasons for one of them gaining themselves a topic ban) does not reflect well on the motivations for this article existing. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why one incident garners attention and another does not is irrelevant to judging notability, we follow sources, published articles are the metric by which we gauge notability of recent crimes. In this case, coverage has been intense, international, and ongoing. Today's headlines include "Why a UK woman's murder in Israel should boil your blood and make you rethink foreign aid" [29], & "British Taxpayers to Pay Hannah Bladon’s Killer a Monthly Salary" [30]. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Daily Mail will use any excuse to print something xenophobic. Otherwise, the incident has largely disappeared from the British national press. It's not a IDONTLIKEIT issue, it's a matter of NOTNEWS - there's nothing here that distinguishes this from hundreds or even thousands of similar incidents - except, as I said, where it happened, which is why it's got an article in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017 (or Merge, I guess, but it looks to be covered there already) - Doesn't look to be lasting significance such that it demands a stand-alone article. The Daily Mail article, which is mentioned above to point to lasting significance, in addition to being our only quasi-"official" unreliable source, is demonstrating unreliability here. To read the story, you would think that the Palestinian Authority looked at this case and said "yes, this guy -- let's give this guy a reward", when in fact it's just a routine gripe about UK foreign aid and a controversial policy of the Palestinian Authority. "...Tamimi or his family qualify for a 'salary' from the PA, according to Itamar Marcus, spokesman for the Israeli monitoring group Palestinian Media Watch. 'According to PA law, everyone who is imprisoned for 'resisting the occupation' receives a PA salary,' he said." In other words, it's a bit of advocacy that could be run as a boilerplate and has nothing to do with developments in this particular example. No objection to this being recreated down the road if it receives lasting coverage, of course. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RAPID is not a temporary shield from standard policies and guidelines, as it is most often invoked to be when linked at AfD. Don't rush to delete articles and don't rush to create articles (often, there's only an opportunity for WP:RAPID to be argued at AfD when someone has ignored the rest of the page that section is taken from). Sometimes it makes sense to delete, sometimes it makes sense not to create. Unfortunately (but not actually unfortunate, of course) there's no long process like this for creating an article, weighing arguments about whether someone is creating something too early. There's nothing preventing those who wish to create the article from also revisiting in 6 months or a year. Certainly not opposed to userfying to make that easier. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are all mass or multiple stabbings, not similar to a psychiatric patient suddenly turning on a woman next to him and stabbing her, and apologizing to the family (and no doubt contradicting himself). Jerusalem has nothing to do with it: his ethnicity is the reason this has been made into an article.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I again suggest to you that you read the links before making grand, sweeping and inaccurate assertions. Although the main point is that coverage suffices to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was inclined to agree with Nishidani until I noticed that there are non-fatal stabbings in Europe that resulted in Wikipedia articles. I might add that the ones I checked were not subject to deletion discussions like this one, which leads me to believe that POV issues perhaps exist on both sides. (surprise surprise) Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've never disguised my POV in this area, Core. But it would be extremely easy for me to write up, on E.M.Gregory's principles, a hundred short articles of Palestinians killed without justification (according to Human Rights Watch, B'tselem, Amnesty International, and other reputable NGOs) so that, by links, and cats, one could cram Wikipedia with that POV. I've done only one article like this, Zion Square assault, and began it 12 days after the incident, when it was apparent that the incident was assuming a notable dimension in global newspaper accounts. Whatever influence I have has been expended repeatedly in reminding editors identified as being sympathetic to Palestinians as well, not to imitate this execrable practice. Even User:Sepsis II whose editing partisanship worried me at times, waited 17 days before starting Beitunia killings, though I had been mulling the propriety of doing it myself since it was an egregious example of IDF murder, but was more conservative in thinking of the appropriate time to write up the material.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: Then by all means write those hundred articles. The absence of articles on similar attacks is not the strongest possible argument for deleting this one. Coretheapple (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Life's too brief. There's far too much serious encyclopedic work to be done on the passing away of thousands of peoples and their distinctive cultures to allow oneself to play games on stacking this place with quickie one-off articles that can be summed up in a few lines. I refuse to be sucked into imitating erratic or negative behavior just to 'get even'. It takes the same amount of time to write an article on an extinct Aboriginal people as to write one on some single event of modern terrorism, and it is indicative of our times that we get the horn over, treat as spectacular, single events of violence, while your average American, Canadian, South American or Australian can't even recall the names of whole ethnic groups wiped out or rendered extinct by land-grabbing attrition, usually on the land their suburbs and farms are built on. Statistically it is far more dangerous to get into your car and go driving than to walk the streets of cities, like Paris, afflicted by incidents of terrorism. France wiped out a third of the population of Algeria in 40 years; Italy was the first country, in 1911, to douse poison gas on a native population in Libya wiping out whole tribes (a practice endorsed by Churchill in 1925: the British used it in Iraq in 1919) but no one remembers that 'stuff'. But they will tend to think, thanks to Wikipedia's activism on behalf of tabloids, that several incidents each year 'demonstrate' the undying enmity of the 'Arabs' against 'white' civilization. We must focus on, as one editor said here, the 'truth' of their religious hatred.Nishidani (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to you personally. My point is that if there is an imbalance or a double standard, then simply fix it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M.Gregory, don't you think that 37 comments from you in this AfD are quite enough? From where I sit, this WP:BLUDGEONING has gone from annoying to downright abusive. Would you please stop?- MrX 18:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't have it both ways - you've used OTHERSTUFF to oppose someone's comment above but here you're using it yourself! Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask you to at least consider whether this article is being judged by different standards - I would say that this question would only be relevant if those also went to AfD and the same editors opined in a clearly different way. I've only gone through the first two on the list, which do not look to have gone to AfD, and which likely should go to AfD. Neither the Munich nor Reutlingen articles contain any indication of lasting coverage whatsoever. Brief mentions in lists, the obvious update upon sentencing, and that's it. All of the citations otherwise come from within a week of the event. Perhaps the reason it's easier to form an opinion on this one is that there is an obvious merge target (though there may be for the others, too -- I haven't looked yet). If you think that I have different standards or that another editor exhibits different standards for evaluating notability, it may be worth bringing up, but as this stands, it's a textbook WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Responding to the direction of this sub-thread since E.M.Greegory's initial question, I don't know why fatal/non-fatal, multiple/single distinctions matter in terms of evaluating notability, aside from to say that they are indications of the only thing that actually matters -- that the events receive significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject over a period of time. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like similar events in this area of the world, it does receive extensive and continuing coverage. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets notability criteria, has sufficient references, potential to develop more fully exists. I do not see the argument to delete, except an ideological one - which should not be the basis for deletion. Ifnord (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep certainly passes notability. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a high standard for WP:NCRIME because it must meet WP:RS requirements including WP:NEWSORGS - since this article has liberally cited multiple sources for a single article (which should be treated as one source) - a careful examination of the sources may prove that this article does not have sufficient references. I have cleaned out the obvious ones, but there may be more. Seraphim System (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given the regrettable frequency with which this kind of terrorist attack occurs in Israel, I don't think it is useful to have a separate article on every single such event. I think it is better to have an article on this kind of event as a category, which can list individual events such as this one. While there will inevitably be enough media coverage to build an article on every single such event, it is somewhat akin to having an article on every single murder, which isn't really encyclopaedic. Terrorist attacks generally stand out from your average murder due to their rarity and their individual impact on the public consciousness – the sad fact is that this sort of terrorist attack has become common enough in Israel that I don't think that is true any more for these attacks individually, although it is of course still true of the terroristic pattern of which they form a part, so have an article on the pattern/category instead of the instances. SJK (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:SJK and others who make this argument fail to respond to the question that I raise above, a question that has caused at least one editor to change his iVote from Delete to Keep: Since it is the case that in instances where ongoing, widespread, in-depth sources exist, terrorist attacks (including terrorism-related attacks in which no one or no one except perp was killed,) and stabbing attacks (including not only stabbing attacks in which perp is under treatment for mental instability and high-profile stabbing attacks that prove to be free of ideological motivation) are kept, even in countries like France, Germany, Belgium, the U.S. and Australia where such attacks can be described as "common," (Category:Stabbing attacks) in iVoting to delete this article are editors inadvertently treating events in the Jewish differently from Wikipedia's treatment of events in other countries?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: I think a number of articles in that category probably need to be deleted and/or merged. If you want to AFD some of them I'd probably support you. (For example, I don't think 2017 Queanbeyan stabbing attacks is an event of lasting significance and probably should be merged into List of terrorist incidents in Australia.) So, no, I don't think I personally am applying a different standard to Israel-related articles than to those about other countries. (I'm not going to speculate on the motivations of other !voters because speculating about the motivations of other people is rarely helpful.) SJK (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not speak about motivation, not yours, not anyone's.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic bickering unrelated to the AfD
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Just a minor point: despite repeated attempts by editors to insert cats stating that this 'occurred in Israel', it took place in territory where Israel is technically in international law a 'belligerent occupying power'. This does not exculpate murderers, of course, nor mitigate the gravity of the crime.Nishidani (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please...--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since despite East Jerusalem being distinct from the rest of the west bank (in being annexed), the stabbing occurred in West Jerusalem held since 1948 - in "IDF square Jerusalem"[31] - which as-per google-maps [32] is very close to the pre-1967 border - but definitely on the pre-war Israeli side and not even in a no-man's land (the "green line" isn't really a line, but two parallel lines in many places).Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
to be nit-picky - the national park portion of Allenby Square is mostly in former no-man's land, but the train line and stations are clearl not.Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys cite Wikipedia articles to challenge what I say, at least read them. 'Israel's claim of sovereignty over West Jerusalem is considered to be stronger than its claim over East Jerusalem'.West Jerusalem. A claim of sovereignty means it is contested. In international law, whatever the de facto situation, it remains a corpus separatum. This is really basic knowledge, that all editors should be familiar with in the I/P areaNishidani (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While corpus separatum is relevant to west Jerusalem (and likewise - eastern Jerusalem vs. any Palestinian claim) - this is a rather dead in the water claim. Israel, regardless of this claim, is definitely not a 'belligerent occupying power' (in contrast to the 1967 areas) - as no such international body was ever founded. The corpus claim is fairly similar in strength (though marginally stronger) in relation to any 1948 area outside of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - of which there is quite a bit. Had your original statement had been about Eastern Jerusalem - it would have had some basis (even though less than areas over which israel didn't asset sovereignty)Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot use sources, please desist from opinionizing. Allenby Square came under Israeli control in 1967. Allenby Square did not form part of Israel 1949-1967. It was taken in the Six days War.
Unlike yourself, I provided a source. Google maps on idf square jerusalem clearly show the railway outside of the no man's land.Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And if map reading is not enough as per PRIMARY, see the secondary geo-location (map widget on the right of the page) as per B'Tselem -.[1] You may be confused as the Allenby monument (to the south and east of the rail-line - in a small park between the road/rail and the wall of the old city) - is in no-man's land (which, should be noted, is a different status than what is east of the no-man's land. Belligerent occupation of no-man's land isn't a strong claim). The light rail line does cross the green line - but that is farther down the line [33] - around ammunition hill it is clearly across (before - it does go into no-man's land - but that is after IDF square). I'm not sure if b'tselem's geo-location is 100% accurate in terms of pin-pointing the exact spot on the line where this happend, but as the rail line itself is to the north and west of the no-man's land strip in this zone (from a bit after the damascus gate stop (which in no-man's land, but not across the no-man's land strip)) - it really isn't an issue. To summarize - the attacker boarded in the Damascus Gate station (which is to the north-west of the gate itself) which is no-man's land, on a westward bound train crossing across the western side of no-man's land after approx. 200m, and from that spot onward the rail (including the spot given in various sources as IDF square) is west of the no-man's land strip. B'Tselem supports this reading (as evidences by their geo-location)- and this is an anti-occupation movement.
  • Note ongoing British news coverage as new issue emerges in this case."May urged to secure pledge from PA over Bladon murder", The Jewish Chronicle, Lee Harpin (news article), 25 April 2017. [34] The story deals with a request by the Labour Friends of Israel asking Theresa May to insure that no British Foreign Aid funds go as a Palestinian Authority monthly stipend to the attacker who killed British citizen Hannah Bladon.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2017 (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.
  1. ^ Palestinian stabs British national to death in Jerusalem, B'Tselem, April 2017 - (geolocation on map widget on the right of the page)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Jerusalem_Light_Rail_stabbing&oldid=1064397197"