Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 September 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. NOTNEWS is policy and trumps N. Arguments of inate notability are well assertions and carry little weight. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba[edit]

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

Another day, and another rocket attack in the region. The article fails several policies including, Wikipedia:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Jmundo (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non notable news article, per WP:NOTNEWS. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep attack on Jordan is significant. Not just a regular attack on Israel which can be swept under the carpet. per category Category:Terrorist incidents in 2010 Peculiar that the nom has singled out only these three Palestinian attacks and not any of the many other similar articles in the top level and sub-categories. This seems to be larger than one event, and should instead get some RfC instead. --Shuki (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another in a series of articles on news events relating to the Israeli-Palestinian war. This cuts both ways, both for articles based on breaking news for attacks on Israeli civilians as well as for the actions of the Israeli military forces against their targets. Major topics of Israel-Palestinian relations are already adequately chronicled with articles. Given the well-publicized effort at training and launching POV editors at Wikipedia, new articles on the superheated Israel-Palestine situation should be held to the strictest standards for inclusion. This, quite simply, is a news story, not a historical event, and does not get over the notability bar, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe fact that Wikipedia needs more good articles on everything from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe (two among the many countries that need more editors and articles) is not an argument for deleting well-sourced articles on notable events in Israel and the Palestinian territories.AMuseo (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'User:Carrite's assertion that there is a "well-publicized effort at training and launching POV editors at Wikipedia, new articles on the superheated Israel-Palestine situation should be held to the strictest standards for inclusion." is bizarre, and not collegial.AMuseo (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is under attack by a campaign to train and launch editors to advance a specific Point of View with regards to the ongoing Israel-Palestine civil war, if I may call it that... I cast no aspersions upon any editor for being part of this campaign, or not part of this campaign, I only say what I feel — at this juncture we need to take particular care that Wikipedia content is not "gamed" by coordinated POV editing by taking a particularly close look at ALL new articles on the Israel-Palestine situation and making sure they ALL clear a very rigid notability bar. In this particular case, this is a news event, not a historic event, and thus for me an easy call for deletion. Carrite (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's quite AGF I must say. Check out this similar AfD, you can't claim that this is a coordinated effort. In fact, no one even injured in that incident, thank God, yet virtual unanimous consensus for keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis. --Shuki (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-sourced article on a notable simultaneous attack on a Jordanian and an Israeli city. Wikipedia has space to retain articles on notable events, in addition to articles on the broader conflicts of which they are part. As long as suc articles are NPOV, I see no reason to delete. In fact, I wish we had more good coverage of many more individual articles on particular battles, diplomatic incidents, and attacks of civilians, it enables readers on a particular topic to click and learn about a specific incident in depth, and adds a great deal to what we can provide in articles on the larger struggle of which they are part. See, for example, my recent article on St. Ninian's Church, Tynet. It is a small incident in the context of the larger topic of Clandestine churches, an article on which I recently did a major rewirte and expansion, and the article on clandestine churches must be placed in the context of the Reformation. User:Jmundo argues Another day, and another rocket attack, I suppose that its is, (unless, of course, it was your relative who was killed), but where does this argument lead us? User:Carrite and User:Jmundo would have us put everything into one large article. On the same argument, we could eliminate my articles on St. Ninian's Church, Tynet and Clandestine churches and redirect everything to Reformation. But, can we understand the Reformation without understanding the phenomenon of clandestine churches, or understand what a clandestine church was without a small article showing us how Catholic churches had to be camouflaged ot look like barns? Similarly, can we understand the Arab-Israeli conflict, or the Islamist movement without understand that it includes attacks on civilian targets such a Aqaba and Eilat. And can we understand the nature of those attacks without a small article that explains that a Jordanian taxi driver can be killed on a sunny day while waiting for a fare in front of the Intercontinental Hotel? I argue that we cannot. And that the great strength of Wikipedia is that it enables us to take our level of understanding both up to the mega level of the Reformation or Islamism and also to turn up the magnification for a close look at St. Ninian's Church, Tynet and a single rocket attack on Aqaba. This is Wikipedia's great strength. It lets us do something that is difficult to do in a book or in any other literary or reference form. Let us not destroy this strength by deleting good articles on sub-topics.AMuseo (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Due to WP:NOTNEWS. Kavas (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS and a healthy dose of WP:RECENTISM. Seriously, this is getting to be tiring. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be a consensus on Wikipedia that terrorist attacks are notable. This one is especially notable because of its international nature, its highly unusual method (launching missiles from the Sinai peninsula), its high profile target (a popular and usually quiet Red Sea resort town) and its ramifications re relations between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, Egypt and Hamas, and re the US State Department's designation of Eilat. The nom and all the deletion advocates so far have said nothing more than "WP:NOTNEWS" without any attempt at substantiating the implicit argument that this attack is merely news. The fact that this AfD is part of a pattern of attempting to remove specifically terrorist attacks committed by a particular group (Palestinians) is troubling. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has ample coverage about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The only pattern I can observe is the need of editors to rush to create articles about a particular region suffering from WP:RECENTISM, lacking historical perspective and a worldwide view. --Jmundo (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same editor has been spamming every Israeli-terror article with AFDs. one, 2. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not the same editor. Who are you refering to? Kavas (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Terrorist attacks are notable, especially this one since its violated the sovereignty of both Jordan and Israel. Cross-border attacks are quite notable. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some terrorist attacks are notable, but we don't need to rush to create an article for every attack by Hamas or the Taliban. We are not part of the 24 hours news cycle. "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." (WP:N) --Jmundo (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Hamas has committed thousands of attacks against Israel - do we have thousands of articles describing these acts? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly not every Hamas rocket attack is listed as an individual article. This one is clearly distinguished for the broad level of reporting and the fatalities. Many rocket attacks reported garner only a single article in the Israeli media. This is clearly not one of them. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an incident, not encyclopedic. btw, could someone reinstall my page cellar flooding in my house in mainspace? My local newspaper was very expanding on it. A scanned copy anyone? -DePiep (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, long time no see. Where have you been? I think that incident in your home would be NN. In contrast, this event has been picked up by the international media. --Shuki (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

long time no see? Instead of soft tracking me, you could have come over and help cleaning up. The whole neighborhood had the problem, you know. -DePiep (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We don't have a separate article for each missile attack against Israel, and rightly so. However, this one is very different because it involved a cross-sovereign attack, which is, as manifested by the sources had far greater and long term ramifications then anything else that may be considered wp:notnews.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. Takabeg (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone fires rockets at two peaceful cities and kills a civilian. Of course it's notable.Josh02138 (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian deaths are always unfortunate and many are covered by the media, but Wikipedia criteria for inclusion is more than news coverage. (note: The incident is already listed in the extensive and current List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010) --Jmundo (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Plot Spoiler that there has been a broad level of reporting on this one and there were fatalities. It is part of a larger picture. If we don't keep the parts we will have a picture with parts missing. KantElope (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2010 (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.