Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Death of Binyamin Meisner - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roscelese (talk | contribs) at 14:28, 25 February 2015 (re:). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:28, 25 February 2015 by Roscelese (talk | contribs) (re:)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Death of Binyamin Meisner

Death of Binyamin Meisner (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)

Misplaced Pages is still not for news, even news from 1989, if it didn't garner any significant coverage beyond a few days' news cycle. (No hits on this in or after March 1989.) Even in 2013, when the killer was released, there was no significant coverage in reliable sources of this incident, just a list. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - as a notable event which illustrates that rock throwing - the 'weapon of choice' of Palestinians - which is often portrayed in the media as "non lethal" or even "non violent" - is actually a lethal weapon. Contrary to what the OP says, when the murderer was released in 2013, this generated news (referenced in the article) which specifically called out this incident for the reasons I mentioned above -15 years after the event! EscEscEsc (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
"...for the reasons I mentioned above.." - So you have two accounts? Lugnuts 18:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I gave reasons a line above this one, hence "the reasons I gave above". EscEscEsc (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Malik. Did you have in mind subsection 2? The examples given there seem distinguishable: "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". Nor is this "breaking news". And the coverage is over years, on more than one continent, in books and newspapers. I'm considering this, and know your !votes are thoughtful, so thought I would ask. Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Epeefleche and thank you for your message. Yes, I had in mind bullet #2 of WP:NOTNEWS, which begins "Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events." In my opinion, the enduring notability of Staff Sergeant Meisner's death is not evident from the burst of coverage in 1989. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 03:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I see. I wonder if what is meant by the "enduring notability" of the event, which "Misplaced Pages considers", is not best understood by looking at the examples then given -- of what does not constitute enduring notability leading to inclusion. Those are "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" and (sometimes) "recent developments". It strikes me that this event is very easily distinguishable from all of the NOTNEWS examples given to explain what is being viewed as not appropriate for inclusion. Plus, while the coverage is largely from 1989, it is not limited to 1989 -- but actually continued years later. Thoughts? Epeefleche (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Meisner's death (perhaps because of the dramatic and unusual use of a concrete block as a murder weapon) was widely covered in the international press when it occurred; it had an impact on events at the time: the Israeli Army immediately put a lock-down on Nablus for 10 days while it searched house-to-house for his killers; the house form which the block was thrown was demolished; PLO sources asserted that the lockdown led them to scupper rapprochement; the release of the convicted murders decades later received significant press attention; and the incident continues to resonate, it is rehearsed in a 2015 popular book (http://www.amazon.com/Children-Stone-Power-Music-Hard/dp/1608198138). — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 13:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Look at the hundreds of redlinked Palestinian victims of Israeli assassination operations at List of Israeli assassinations. All of those incidents were reported in multiple sources. I did most of the list, but I would strongly oppose attempts to convert each casualty into a wiki article of this type. As for the mode of killing being unusual, well it occurred 2 years into the First Intifada, where, after Rabin reportedly ordered soldiers to break the bones of the teenagers leading the unarmed insurgency, 12 youths were beaten to death by IDF soldiers in Gaza alone in the first year. a commonplace technique was to bind and gag youths, pin them down, and use rocks and rifles to smash their arms or femurs, as you can see one minute into this video. 10% of the 1,000 odd Palestinians killed during that unarmed protest at the occupation died of such methods, which are, in warfare, as peculiar as using a concrete block to kill a soldier raiding one's home town. None of this is worth individual coverage. It should go in lists, without comment. Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another dead Israeli soldier. Sad for his family, undoubtedly, but no more notable then any other soldier killed in conflict. As to there being sources, of course there are. There are sources on every single Western soldier killed in Afghanistan or Iraq too. That doesn't mean they're all notable. If we go down the route of having articles on every single soldier from a country with high internet usage who is killed then we end up turning into a memorial. And not only that, but we end up making it look like soldiers killed in the internet age are more worthy of articles than those killed before it simply because of internet coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Necrothesp, Did you notice that Meisner died before the advent of the internet age? His death received widespread coverage in the the old-fashioned printed newspapers of a long-ago era the death of death of Israeli soldiers on patrol was rare. This is not a memorial, it is an article about a death that received widespread coverage at the time, and that continues to be written about.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Whether or not it counts towards notability, that is not a reason to delete it from the article. Our articles are replete with sources that are proper in the article, though they do not count towards notability. If that were the case, you would never see a Misplaced Pages article quoting a US government statement as to anything where it was not a third party. That's obviously not how it works. Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I was responding to a question about significant coverage in the context of the deletion discussion. Whether the sources are appropriate at all is a different matter. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Understood. If the sources are appropriate (and they appear to be, from what I can see), I think the better course is to not delete them -- especially during the course of a notability discussion. Even if they do not count towards notability. Deleting appropriate sources is always a bad idea. And deleting them during a deletion discussion properly raises eyebrows. The better course, I would suggest, would be to point out in the AfD discussion that "refs x and y do not count towards notability because ..." Best. Epeefleche (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, while the individual Binyamin Meisner has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, thus passing WP:GNG, the individual is primarily notable for a single event, his death, therefore it falls under WP:BIO1E (and thus why there are those who feel WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies) Thus the question that needs to be asked is whether the event that is the death pass WP:EVENT. It can be easily shown that due to the subject passing GNG that the event received significant coverage, now the question is whether the event has received WP:PERSISTENT coverage.
Sandy Tolan (7 April 2015). Children of the Stone: The Power of Music in a Hard Land. Bloomsbury USA. p. 344. ISBN 978-1-60819-813-9.
Google News Search
I would argue that the PERSISTENCE requirement has been met.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Repercussions section in article say "this killing... derailed incipient reconciliation between Israel and the PLO" which shows repercussions beyond this single event. It might need more expansion but indicates that WP:NOTNEWS rule does not apply. Ashtul (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • It's identified as one of several events that, combined, did so - but possibly more to the point, pretty much anything that happens in Israel or Palestine delays some peace talks that are allegedly about to happen. It's a non-indicator at this point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Categories: