Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 13:26, 18 March 2022

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.  Sandstein  17:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush

2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush (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)

WP:NOTNEWS. The matters relating to the Arab Bank belong in the Bank article, which already has a significant amount of coverage of such matters. A relatively minor incident in the Palestine-Israel conflict. No lasting significance. AusLondonder (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Except, of course, for impact on a series of major international legal cases, impact on the public conversation about funding terrorism, and ongoing coverage describing this attack in all its gory detail that have continued to appear in major international media for over 12 years. Please run WP:BEFORE before bringing article to AFD in future. Thank you for backing down on your prod of SeaGlass Carousel, another article that I began. You might also want to consider withdrawing this and your AFD on 2012 Paros (Greece) rape. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Which relates to the Arab Bank angle, best included in the Arab Bank article. AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem confused (again). I didn't "back down" on any PROD. As I have said to you countless times, I did not WP:PROD the carousel article. I placed a WP:SPEEDY tag which was removed without explanation by another editor, not me, as the page history makes clear. I will certainly not withdraw this or the Paros rape article AFD's. I understand why you wish for me to withdraw the AFD from the Paros article, as, putting aside your disruptive behaviour at the previous AFD, the article would have been deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Terrorist attack that received reliable source coverage when it happened and has had lasting significant years later CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, as User:CoffeeWithMarkets states, this was a terrorist attack that was widely covered when it occurred, that has had ongoing coverage in the years since it occurred (now well over a decade) and that has played a widely-covered role in a series of law suits impacting international banking.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Merge to Arab Bank - As usual, existence is not notability, and not every terrorist attack is notable. There is nothing stated in the article claiming, for example, retaliatory action by the IDF or settlers or whomever, nor is it shown to be referenced in other attacks (both of which would show longer-term impact). What I do see, however is a long-term lawsuit, but it's not against the Israeli government, the Palestinian government, Hamas, or anyone who could be considered directly involved; it's a suit against the Arab Bank, and that's the notable and long-term part, as it's been in court for over a decade and recently settled. Therefore, the notability isn't separable from the lawsuit, and it's also not the only one against the bank for terrorism. Therefore, this would be much better suited as its own heading in Arab Bank incorporating all pertinent material from here. That is SOP for articles that aren't really standalone notable. MSJapan (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As requested by MSJapan, I have now added the immediate IDF response to this attack, which was the killing of the senior Hamas militant commander in the area.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Also at MSJapan's prompt, I sourced multiple reliable newspapers describing this murder as a disruption og Colin Powell's peacemaking negotiations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing anything that would go against WP:WITHIN. More sources from newspapers in the same week is still WP:NOTNEWS, and doesn't establish notability, especially because it is not necessary to use four separate sources for one sentence. The overcitation alone diminishes the credibility of the article, like "it's got to be notable because it was in 109 newspapers." Notability is not established on quantity of sources in the short-term. Not everything needs an article, and this is a paragraph's worth of content, regardless of how many sources you find that repeat the same information. Notability is not inherited; Powell was in Israel at the time, and this incident didn't "disrupt the peace process" in 2003, because in hindsight, Powell was actually trying to get support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Whatever "peace process" was going on didn't get to the release of the Road Map for Peace until six months later, and it failed. The lasting effect is still the lawsuit coverage, and that really belongs at the bank because there were 49 other parties in the suit, not just these victims. This is one piece of a much larger story, and it needs its context. MSJapan (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, adding articles to other articles doesn't automatically make them notable by being linked. There's probably going to be a real question at that article whether this incident mattered in the long-term, but I've at least fixed it so June 20 doesn't happen before May 18. MSJapan (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Enduring notability is not required for an article to pass WP:GNG. Although teh enduring impact of this terrorist attack contributes to its notability, notability is not temporary WP:N#TEMP, As demonstrated in article, this incident was notable in 2003. And that is sufficient.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note The event was notable at the time it happened, according to major international newspapers that:

1. covered it in detail

2. wrote that it had an impact on the peace process underway at the time it happened

It has continued to be notable since then in part because of the series of lawsuits, and in part as a human interest story about the impact of terrorism on individual lives.

Rolling into the Arab Bank would not only give this particular terrorist attack undue weight in that article, it would be problematic because the Goldsteins have been parties to several lawsuits against banks accused of enabling terrorism by transferring funds to terrorists. It is more logical (and quite normal WP practice) to have this discrete article about this particular attack, and allow other article to link here for the details of this particular ambush of a civilian vehicle by a terrorist organization.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If there's undue weight for something to be included in another article, a standalone article is certainly even more so, because it means that the event was notable. The notability keeps rolling back to the subsequent lawsuit, and thus to the bank. The 2003 coverage, limited to one month) is textbook NOTNEWS. There's also only one real contemporary source that says this evvent "disrupted the peace process", and that process ultimately failed for reasons unrelated to this event. In fact, this was only one of several attacks in the same relative timeframe according to the roadmap article. This attack wasn't even mentioned in the roadmap article until you put it there. MSJapan (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have also removed all citations regarding Qawasmeh. The first Haaretz source said he was being looked for for two years previously, and did not link him to this attack, so that action was not related to this incident and the Israeli media didn't say so either. Four sources to cite this item is also COATRACK. Speaking of UNDUE, I have also tagged the "disruptive to peace" sources as unverified, as in no source does it indicate this is this attack alone cited - there were a series of incidents, and three or four are mentioned. The interpretation seems to be that of the reporter, not the government. Powell urged peace in the wake of several incidents, not just this one. MSJapan (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Caution, MSJapan, about removing relevant material during SFD, and while claiming that an incident is not noteworthy. Replaced Qawasmeh material. The articles on this targeted assassination of Qawasmeh. who was the Hamas terrorism commanded in the Judean Hills/Hebron area at the time of this murderous ambush discuss the ambush in which Tzvi Goldstein was killed and other injured as part of the increase in Hamas capacity, will, and intention to commit acts of terrorism in this region which led to the decision to designate him for assassination. I try to report what sources say, not to base my editing on my personal opinion that "process ultimately failed for reasons unrelated to this event," as MSJapan does above. Moreover, News articles in Haaretz the Philadelphia Inquirer and other reputable papers are not merely the "reporter's" "interpretation" , thees papers have editorial processes and reporters have to back their assertions up with sufficient evidence to satisfy editors. Not a perfect process, but the best we've got. So, let's try to keep relevant articles on the page and rely on them - mot our personal opinions - to record the events as they happened and were responded to in 2003.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You want to caution me, I've got a whole ANI thread where you can go say whatever you want in your defense. Make the case that the material's relevant, if you want. No one else seems to think so. MSJapan (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - The attack appears to have been high profile mostly because the Goldsteins, who were ambushed, were from New York, were on their way to a family wedding when they were ambushed, and U.S. newspapers picked up the story as a result. I agree with nom that the attack appears to have had no lasting impact. I went ahead and cleaned up the article in case, after this AfD, it remains on Wiki. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly passes WP:GNG. I may not personally think that this one particular attack is notable, but the guidelines are pretty clear. Sources are widespread and in-depth. Onel5969 16:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep The subject passes Misplaced Pages:Notability (events). It has had a lasting effect as E.M.Gregory has explained here. Therefore, there is continued coverage a decade after the event. The sources' geographical scope is wide-ranging and diverse. The event happened on Highway 60 (Israel). The sources in the article include The New York Times, the New York Post, CNN, Newsday, the Associated Press, and Haaretz. This easily meets Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline and Misplaced Pages:Notability (events).

  Cunard (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

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.