Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herzliya Shawarma restaurant bombing

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. The consensus here is that the event has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to assert notability. I would note that AfD is not the place to try and change policy, the best course of action for that would be on the policy talk page or at the Village Pump. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herzliya Shawarma restaurant bombing

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

Not-notable. Just a few relevant hits and loads of copies. How rude it sounds: not deadly enough. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:EVENT per lack of coverage after the initial news cycle and lack of lasting effects. I see no reason why events in Israel should be exempt from this guideline. The fact that this is sourced largely to an anti-Palestinian political organization is also troubling. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like all of these types of incidents they have long lasting notability. Perhaps a westerner sitting editing wikipedia all day, missing any sort of connection to real life, cannot place him or herself into a different cultures. Cultures that may mourn the deaths of their innocent for years on end or cultures that may celebrate the murderer of innocents that are spit forth from their culture by building monuments to their murderers. Regardless, its long lasting notability is attested by the article itself and by the sources discussing the incident. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Do I understand you correctly? The existence of the Wikipedia article is evidence of its notability? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a serious argument instead of this ad hominem attack? Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "not deadly enough" is not a valid reason for deletion.
- Terrorist attacks with significant national or international press coverage are inherently notable.
- Keeping this article serves the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference.
- I added some sources. The article currently cites reliable sources with non trivial coverage of the event including Jerusalem Post, New York Times, Haaretz, BBC, CNN.
- The event was notable enough to be the subject of a complaint to the the UN Security Council;
- Additional sources can be easily added to the article, instead of deleting it. Marokwitz (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I consider attacks (and disasters and accidents) with less then 5 fatalities and/or less then 50 wounded not notable. Not every attack in Israel is automatically notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, that's not a policy compliant argument. Notability has nothing to do with an arbitrary number of fatalities. Just as an exaggerated example, imagine president Obama died in terrorist attack. As 1 person would we have to delete the article? Nope. That's why our notability guidelines, and specifically, the primary notability criterion are based on an objective criteria - the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. If many reliable sources consider an historical event noteworthy and cover it in depth, then it is a "notable" event. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we have infinite space for articles. If there are sufficient reliable sources which cover the event in depth, it is possible for Wikipedians to compose a good article and I don't see any reason why we should delete it. Marokwitz (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mr. Obama is notable on his own. But if someone is attacking him and only kills his waitress, no way she will get an article or will be mentioned by name in any article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have to draw the line somewhere. In my opinion that is the 5/50-rule (in case of not-notable people). Otherwise you can start describing every shouting in Israel with one or more people wounded or killed. Ow, and don't forget the shootings with Palestian victims. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You didn't get my point. The line is drawn by the existence of wide coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't matter how many people were killed, or their ethic identity. 14:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
        You did not get my point! Not every shooting or killing is notable, regardless of media coverage. You should value the sources and be aware of systemic bias (WP:SYSTEMIC) by US and Israelian press. They magnify one case (especially in the USA and israel) and ignore others. Every seens the movie Hotel Rwanda, that nicely tells that the Americans refuse to come to their aid because Rwanda is not important? Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This article cites also Arab and UK press, not only "US and Israelian press". This event was discussed by major, reliable sources worldwide, which is more than enough to make it a notable event. Marokwitz (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: We should beware of systemic bias (WP:SYSTEMIC). If the same event happened in an American school, killing one girl and injuring 15, would this still be not a notable event? After answering, check out Campbell County High School shooting, 2008 University of Central Arkansas shootings, Olean High School shooting, Lindhurst High School shooting, East Carter High School shooting, San Diego State University shooting and so on and so on. Yes, I am fully aware that other stuff exists, just bringing those as an eye opening example. Marokwitz (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, nominated them all. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good luck for getting articles deleted without any policy-compliant reason. This borders on violation of WP:POINT, be careful. Marokwitz (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Markowitz reasonings. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sourcing shows it is a notable event.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marokwitz: "not deadly enough" is not a valid reason for deletion. Could not have said it better myself. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: International significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability aside, I find one death deadly enough because I actually care about other people even when I never met them myself (not saying that you don't). If I for instance nominated an article for deletion like this, I would not say "not deadly enough" which is disrespect to the people who died and their loved ones even if I thought that it isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More sources were recently added. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing else needs to be said really. Article has solid sources and event is notable. Pointless AFD imo. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, every time I think I've seen the least policy-compliant "keep" rationale that could possibly exist... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD is a snow by now so not a lot I could add that hasn't already been said other than simple support. Sorry. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to yours specifically; most of the "keep"s here have been pretty light on policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:42, 5 September 2011 (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.