Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Nablus attack

Add links
Extended-protected page
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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. The NOTNEWS argument is very powerful here. None of the "keep" !votes makes it likely that this will be reported on even just a month from now. Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Nablus attack

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2023 Nablus attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS Not important enough to merit an article on its own. Compare with 2023 Nablus incursion (11 deaths). Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Recent event of no visible significant lasting impact. WP:NOTNEWS (If the article survives, there is much scraping to be done, with unsourced material, use of a Twitter video as a source, far too much quoting.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event is important enough to merit an article. This event has been reported on by notable major media outlets in at least 13 countries (Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Germany, US, Belgium, Israel, Mexico, Argentina, France, Italy, Uruguay, Guatemala, Singapore and Namibia), including BILD, Spiegel, RTL, ZDF, Al Arabiya, the Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, Barron's, KAN News, L'Orient, The Straits Times, among others. I have 40 references for this attack and I will add more. This attack has caused a international incident between the Palestinian Authority and the German government, and while it is far from the first attack on a civilian vehicle in the West Bank, it is the first reported attack on a civilian vehicle driven by German tourists/and non-Jewish nationals of European country as far as I am aware. This is very peculiar incident that has received significant attention due to the origin of the victims, as well as the attack itself. (Redacted) I would be happy to discuss this article with any other editor, and listen to their input and take their feedback to heart in order to work to create the best version of this article possible.Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure if it should be kept or removed. However, I think the article needs some improvement though if it is kept, for example all the references are piled up next to each other at the end of the introduction.
Vamsi20 (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comment, and your helpful suggestion that some improvements be made. I would be happy to make improvements to the article, regarding the references being piled up- do you think it would look better if I pile them up further down in the article? Or maybe there some other way to make it look better? Because I agree with you, I honestly don’t like the way the end of the introduction looks either, so I would be interested in whatever you suggest to do to make it look better. Thank you so much for your time and I appreciate your help with this. :)Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious notnews failure, also many of the claims of "attempted lynching" are based on incredibly poor sources like Yoseph Haddad's twitter account and the Israellycool blog. The actual reliable sources say nothing of the sort. nableezy - 20:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your opinion, however I dispute your assertion that this is an obvious notnews failure, because there are approximately 40 references, the bulk of which are major news outlets including BILD, Spiegel, RTL, ZDF, Al Arabiya, the Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, Barron's, KAN News, L'Orient, The Straits Times, among others. Are these incredibly poor sources? The Israellycool reference is an article containing the English language interview with one of the victims of the attempted lynching, and it mostly just quotes what the victim himself stated in the embedded video, and also quotes the German ambassador. The video shared by Yoseph Haddad (who is a Palestinian Arab), was taken by Palestinian witnesses of the attempted lynching. I have references containing this same video from major news outlets such as BILD (a well respected German news outlet). I can also reference excellent Palestinian sources with the same video and/or that corroborate the information I have posted from other international sources, such as WAFA News Agency and other official Palestinian Authority sources if you would like?Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those list of sources boils down to one source, an AFP story carried in a number of outlets. Its amazing to see somebody give a list of 20 references to the same story and pretend like they have 20 sources. And the funniest thing about is that none of them call it an attempted lynching lol. nableezy - 21:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • snowball delete, At a time, when there is hardly a day when a young Palestinian isn't killed, it is absurd to have an article about this incidence. Also, someone apparently has mind-reading capabilities, "knowing" that this was an "attempted lynching". And Israellycool is as far from RS as you can get, Huldra (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you are voting to delete this article only because of your POV. It is sad to see you insert your own POV violating WP:POV and make an inflammatory statement which is not factual and not backed up by any references, and it also irrelevant to this article and the discussion surrounding it. I have always greatly respected both you and Nableezy, both for your expertise and professionalism and I am very disappointed by your comment, Hilda. If the issue was something more substantive with the actual article, ok, but the only problem you could find was that Israellycool is one of the more than 30 references listed in the article. It is not listed on the unreliable source list, and the source linked if you care to read it is an article containing the English language interview with one of the victims of the attempted lynching, and it is mostly just quotes what the victim himself stated in the embedded video, and also quotes the German ambassador. There are many articles about this attack from very excellent, reliable, esteemed and knowledgeable Palestinian sources such as WAFA News Agency, Shehaab News, Al-Quds News, Shehada News, and many others if you would like me to add them to the article? I have linked Al Arabiya to this article and I can also link Al Jazeera and Arab News (UAE) if you would like? The only issue you can find with the article (or at least the only that you mentioned) is that I linked to an Israeli blog (1 out of 30 sources) and literally nothing else was mentioned that has anything at all to do with the article.Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong: I didn't vote delete because it was mentioned by "Israellycool", I voted delete beacause it is totally Non Notable incident. And as Nableezy notes: one source parroted all over the internet is still only one source, Huldra (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources are a single source, a single AFP article you cited some 15 times to 15 different reprints. This is the same as this. They are not separate sources. And it doesnt say the word lynch anywhere in it! nableezy - 01:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed the sources you mentioned referred to this as a lynching, it was other sources that did. However I appreciate your input and I have taken your advice to heart and I have removed the mentioned of lynch and lynching. I am working to improve the article sufficiently so that it may not be deleted.Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. I mean, give us a break. When people are being killed daily, a couple of unfortunate tourists who got their tires slashed is hardly a blip on the horizon. It will soon be forgotten, and so should this "article". Zerotalk 02:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax per Once's update below and the most recent update in the German press. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or, failing that, draftify. A limited event which, while subject to some coverage, is of limited relevance. Seems a clear example of why we have WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM guidelines. WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE and other considerations also apply. Guliolopez (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the information provided, the 2023 Nablus attack appears to be a notable event. It involved an attack on foreign tourists visiting a Palestinian Authority-controlled area, which is generally prohibited for Israelis, and resulted in violence and property damage. The incident received media coverage and international reactions, including a response from the German Ambassador to Israel.
Additionally, the incident sheds light on the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and highlights the issue of hate education in the region. Therefore, it can be argued that the attack has a historical significance beyond its immediate impact.
According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, an event may be considered notable if it receives significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the event or subjects involved. The coverage should also be enduring, with the event receiving coverage over an extended period or having lasting impact or historical significance.
Based on this criteria, the 2023 Nablus attack may be considered notable as it received coverage in various reliable sources, including news outlets and official statements, and is likely to have lasting impact and historical significance due to its implications on the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, it ultimately depends on the quality and quantity of coverage and the editorial judgment of Wikipedia editors. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we want light shed on the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis, we have a number of articles on that topic, and it would seem ridiculous to use an event that involved no Israelis to do that. It's hard to see any significant outflow of that. Germany is not going to invade Palestine. That a German ambassador said that it's bad that German tourists get attacked is not some important result of lasting value. About the only reason I could see to have an article on a tire slashing is to demonize Palestinians, and that should not be the goal on Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While there may already be articles on the topic of the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis, each event and incident can provide a unique perspective and context to that ongoing conflict. It is important to report on events as they happen, regardless of whether or not they directly involve Israelis or Palestinians, as they can shed light on the larger issues at play. The fact that German nationals were attacked while visiting a Palestinian-controlled area is relevant to the ongoing conflict, as it highlights the risks and dangers involved in travel to certain areas.
Additionally, the response from the German ambassador, as well as the international reaction, is significant and worth reporting on. It demonstrates the impact that such events can have on diplomatic relations between countries and can provide insight into the attitudes and opinions of various stakeholders.
It is not the goal of Wikipedia to demonize any particular group or to take sides in a conflict. Rather, it aims to provide neutral and factual information on a wide range of topics, including current events. By reporting on this incident, Wikipedia is fulfilling its mission of providing accurate and comprehensive information on a variety of subjects, including ongoing conflicts and their impact on individuals and societies. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not why we write articles. This non event is already forgotten. Selfstudier(talk) 10:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that some events may not be as significant as others, it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to decide what is worth documenting and what is not. Wikipedia's goal is to provide accurate and unbiased information on a wide range of topics, including events that may seem insignificant at first glance. Even if an event is not widely known or has been forgotten, it may still have relevance or value to certain individuals or groups, and documenting it may help to provide a more complete understanding of a particular topic or issue. Additionally, just because an event is not widely known does not mean it will not become relevant or significant in the future. Therefore, it is important for Wikipedia to provide comprehensive coverage of all topics, even those that may seem insignificant at the moment. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to decide what is worth documenting and what is not. That's why we have AfD, to get rid of non notable non events of no lasting significance. Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that Wikipedia has a process called Articles for Deletion (AfD), which allows the community to discuss and decide whether an article should be deleted based on its notability and significance. However, until the AfD process determines that an article should be deleted, it is still part of Wikipedia and can be improved upon by editors.
Furthermore, while AfD can be a useful tool to weed out articles that don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it's important to remember that notability is not the only criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. For example, articles can also be notable for their impact on society, historical significance, or cultural significance, even if the event itself is relatively minor. Ultimately, it's up to the community to decide whether an article should be included on Wikipedia or not, but until then, editors can continue to work on improving the article. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If an event has significance in the future, the page should be created then. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It is important to report on events as they happen"? No, it is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. WP:NOTNEWS --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for an event is determined by whether it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the event itself. The notability would depend on the level of coverage it has received in reliable sources, and whether that coverage extends beyond a brief mention in the news. The German Ambassador to Israel's reaction to the 2023 Nablus attack can be considered significant in the present in terms of notability, as it represents an official statement from a diplomatic representative of a country regarding a notable event. Ultimately, it is up to the Wikipedia community to evaluate the sources and determine whether the event meets the notability standards for inclusion. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a two-sentence personal tweet from an ambassador automatically makes something eligible for an article, we're doomed, I tell ya, doomed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Twitterpedia! Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, statements made on social media platforms are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, as they may not meet the criteria for reliable sources, such as editorial oversight or a reputation for fact-checking. A statement made on a personal Twitter account does not necessarily make it eligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. However, in some cases, statements made by a reputable individual or organization on social media may be used as a source if they are properly attributed and corroborated by other reliable sources.
Additionally the statement was made on an official account, the embassy's official Twitter account. This is important because official accounts are typically subject to more scrutiny and oversight, and are less likely to be subject to misinformation or manipulation.
The Straits Times and AFP, see the ref in the article, are both reliable sources, and they have reported on the statements made by the German Ambassador to Israel in response to the 2023 Nablus attack. As such, these statements can be included in the Wikipedia article, provided that they are attributed to the relevant sources. The response to critics can also be included as long as it is properly sourced:
To the critics of my tweet: We know the pain of Palestinians. We support their peaceful aspirations towards a state. We know the great Palestinian hospitality. But yesterday two tourists were in grave danger because they were chased by a mob and that can never be justified. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2023_Nablus_attack&oldid=1147207270"