Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2016 Jerusalem shooting attack: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 11:33, 19 October 2016 editBolter21 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users10,123 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:23, 19 October 2016 edit undoNishidani (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,525 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 25:		Line 25:
	::*This '''personal attack''' is inappropriate. It is also inaccurate. I create articles on events in many parts of the world. The articles I create on the murder of Jews are in no way different from the articles I create on terrorist murders of other peoples, such as ], ], or ]. I fail to understand the accsusation that creating well-sourced articles is an "ongoing defiance of policy." As for Nishdani's assertion that creating articles on attacks by Islamist terrorists that target Jews is an "attempt to turn Misplaced Pages into an ethnic exclusive version of ]," it is not only inaccurate; it is foul. ] (]) 10:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)		::*This '''personal attack''' is inappropriate. It is also inaccurate. I create articles on events in many parts of the world. The articles I create on the murder of Jews are in no way different from the articles I create on terrorist murders of other peoples, such as ], ], or ]. I fail to understand the accsusation that creating well-sourced articles is an "ongoing defiance of policy." As for Nishdani's assertion that creating articles on attacks by Islamist terrorists that target Jews is an "attempt to turn Misplaced Pages into an ethnic exclusive version of ]," it is not only inaccurate; it is foul. ] (]) 10:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Note''' that this article is similar to other new terrorist attack articles: ], ], ], and others. It is, however, far more efficient to create these articles when the attack occurs and sources are usually available as open sources, than to create one like ] 20 years after the event when sources and details are more difficult to locate.] (]) 10:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)		*'''Note''' that this article is similar to other new terrorist attack articles: ], ], ], and others. It is, however, far more efficient to create these articles when the attack occurs and sources are usually available as open sources, than to create one like ] 20 years after the event when sources and details are more difficult to locate.] (]) 10:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
			**'''Note to note above'''. Self-citation. Those 3 are all cheapo article run up in an hour by yourself, like dozens of earlier ones, violating wiki notability policies. They all deal with Arabs, same POV.] (]) 12:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Delete''': as part of my deletionist approach to non-prominant terrorist attacks, this attack is not prominant, and has a place in ]. It doesn't need an article. There is no encyclopedic value to this attack. You can't justify this attack with other articles about attacks in France or Belgium and I do not deny the fact some of those attacks (in Europe and the US) doesn't really need an article but it doesn't matter right now. ] and ] both said that this attack might have copycats, but apart from four days of rioting (after a year of rioting) in Jerusalem, nothing really happened. As we already have an article, talking about the phase of violance in which this incident occured, and generally speaking it was forgotten less than a week after, just like most of the attacks, it has no significance.--] <small>''(])''</small> 11:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)		*'''Delete''': as part of my deletionist approach to non-prominant terrorist attacks, this attack is not prominant, and has a place in ]. It doesn't need an article. There is no encyclopedic value to this attack. You can't justify this attack with other articles about attacks in France or Belgium and I do not deny the fact some of those attacks (in Europe and the US) doesn't really need an article but it doesn't matter right now. ] and ] both said that this attack might have copycats, but apart from four days of rioting (after a year of rioting) in Jerusalem, nothing really happened. As we already have an article, talking about the phase of violance in which this incident occured, and generally speaking it was forgotten less than a week after, just like most of the attacks, it has no significance.--] <small>''(])''</small> 11:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:23, 19 October 2016

2016 Jerusalem shooting attack

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

WP:NOTNEWS. There's been an unfortunate habit of creating an article for every news event involving violence, at least every event involving violence against Israelis, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This should be merged to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016 unless some sustained coverage, which requires time, can be shown Nableezy 23:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 23:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 23:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:RECENTISM. Yes, I know that NOTNEWS and NOTMEMORIAL indicate the "article" should be deleted, but I also know that the "article" will almost certainly be kept regardless of policy. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What sort of reason is that? Zero 00:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The reason(ing) is this: Since the administrator who closes this discussion is almost certain to ignore all rules (and not in a WP:IAR sort of way, because that policy requires as a condition the improvement of Misplaced Pages) and close it as keep based on a nose-count, it doesn't matter that I cite policy that says this alleged article is a Wiki-abomination. I might as well vote with the majority. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

According to this logic we should delete half of the articles about events in Misplaced Pages.Many articles rely solely on contemporary news articles of those events.I don't mind the mind the cleanup but it should be uniform. Till that this article should stay--Shrike (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Umm no. If you dont get the logic feel free to ask, but try not to misrepresent it. K thnx. nableezy - 14:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This was meant for Malik.I fixed the indent--Shrike (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence that this event is of an enduring encyclopedic nature at this point. Redirect to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016 per nom. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep Per WP:GNG many WP:RS sources discuss this event not only as news but more thorough analysis for example ,--Shrike (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep Per WP:GNG, plenty of sources.BabbaQ (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:HEYMANN, I have expanded the article with sources and events that have taken place since the shooting. (I have not yet added the excellent sources brought by User:Shrike above). More remains to be added on details of the attack; political context, but article clearly passes WP:GNG. Note also that it is routine practice to add terror attacks when they occur.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It is your routine. And please note, WP:NOT is a Misplaced Pages policy. WP:GNG is a guideline. A violation of WP:NOT cannot be addressed by an assertion that it satisfies a guideline. nableezy - 03:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep Now has plenty of reliable sources and coverage XyzSpaniel Talk Page 07:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete obviously. Apart from the ongoing defiance of policy, E. M. Gregory's attempt to turn Misplaced Pages into an ethnic exclusive version of Yad Vashem fails here, because the details on the incident in the new article are already far more comprehensively covered in the specialist article dedicated to this violence List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016 (See October 9), which is maintained by myself and User:Bolter21, so both POVs are respected and both editors take pains to ensure the other side's story is duly covered. Thus this is sheer POV-pushing reduplication when not el cheapo forays into quick separate article compilation that looks great on a wiki CV. Please note that in the latter article, all incidents of violence by both sides are set out in chronological context, not according to an ethnocentric bias according to which violence undertaken by Israel is insignificant on wikipedia whereas Palestinian violence must be given intensive coverage. Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This personal attack is inappropriate. It is also inaccurate. I create articles on events in many parts of the world. The articles I create on the murder of Jews are in no way different from the articles I create on terrorist murders of other peoples, such as 2014 Tours police station stabbing, 2014 Kabul restaurant bombing, or 2016 Brussels stabbing. I fail to understand the accsusation that creating well-sourced articles is an "ongoing defiance of policy." As for Nishdani's assertion that creating articles on attacks by Islamist terrorists that target Jews is an "attempt to turn Misplaced Pages into an ethnic exclusive version of Yad Vashem," it is not only inaccurate; it is foul. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that this article is similar to other new terrorist attack articles: Notre Dame Cathedral bombing attempt, 2016 Brussels stabbing, 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing, and others. It is, however, far more efficient to create these articles when the attack occurs and sources are usually available as open sources, than to create one like 1996 Paris Métro bombing 20 years after the event when sources and details are more difficult to locate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note to note above. Self-citation. Those 3 are all cheapo article run up in an hour by yourself, like dozens of earlier ones, violating wiki notability policies. They all deal with Arabs, same POV.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete: as part of my deletionist approach to non-prominant terrorist attacks, this attack is not prominant, and has a place in Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–present). It doesn't need an article. There is no encyclopedic value to this attack. You can't justify this attack with other articles about attacks in France or Belgium and I do not deny the fact some of those attacks (in Europe and the US) doesn't really need an article but it doesn't matter right now. Amos Harel and Ron Ben Yishai both said that this attack might have copycats, but apart from four days of rioting (after a year of rioting) in Jerusalem, nothing really happened. As we already have an article, talking about the phase of violance in which this incident occured, and generally speaking it was forgotten less than a week after, just like most of the attacks, it has no significance.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Categories: