Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:05, 4 September 2015 editE.M.Gregory (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users45,004 edits →2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush: keep← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:22, 4 September 2015 edit undoMSJapan (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers20,100 edits mergeNext edit →
Line 16:		Line 16:
	:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 19:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)</small>		:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 19:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)</small>
	*'''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.] (]) 20:05, 4 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.] (]) 20:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
			*'''Merge to Arab Bank''' - As usual, ], 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 ] incorporating all pertinent material from here. That is SOP for articles that aren't really standalone notable. ] (]) 20:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:22, 4 September 2015

2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush

(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)

Categories: