Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netanya Market 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. v/r - T P 01:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netanya Market bombing

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

I'm not seeing the continuing coverage that makes this pass WP:EVENT. The only in-depth coverage is from the time of the event, ie. news; the only coverage from more than a little while after is trivial, often in the same breath with a number of other attacks. No evidence of lasting or far-ranging effect, or any of the other EVENT criteria. Tragic, but not encyclopedic. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is not a not a minor criminal incident only mentioned in some local news for a short while - it was a mass-casualty terrorist attack that took place in the heart of a central city in Israel and was committed against a large group of civilians, which has left dozens of people injured and killed. I really do not understand why anyone might think this is a trivial event. The event received an extensive coverage in the mainstream media at the time like all the other major militant attacks carried out against Israeli targets during the Second intifada militancy campaign. In addition, it is worth noting that the terror attacks which occurred during in the Second intifada had a great impact on Israel's policy regarding prevention of potential terror attacks (see History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict#2000-2005: Second Intifada and Israeli West Bank barrier) and on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the article's subject was widely covered and satisfies GNG, and essentially also WP:EVENT. This article is not about a crime, accident, death, etc., but a suicide terrorist attack that got plenty of international coverage. It is my belief that all multi-casualty events (in this case, about 60 casualties) are inherently notable, as are most successful suicide bombings. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (events) and per WP:NOTNEWS. A bomb killed three people and seriously injured a few more, with minor injuries to additional persons, due to one person with an explosive belt. There was no major retaliation. In the context of the Israli-Palestinian conflict, this seems a rather sadly common news event, without enduring consequences except for those directly involved. Edison (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - to delete would fail the Buzaglo test. --Sreifa (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, what? This appears to be completely irrelevant, and even if it were otherwise, it's not Wikipedia policy. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I.e., if a bomb attack killed three and injured 59 in London, it would not be nominated for deletion. --Sreifa (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, in Wikipedia policy this problem is known as WP:Systemic Bias. Marokwitz (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - In London, this doesn't happen every day, so it's more likely to have lasting effects or to be discussed years later. (See, for example, 7 July 2005 London bombings, which resulted in the pound falling to a 19-month low against the dollar; this article on the 2007 UK terrorist incidents; Warrington bomb attacks, which resulted in the Irish government's changing their extradition policy and which have plenty of coverage outside of the initial news cycle.) In Israel, this is depressingly common, one individual attack rarely has lasting effects on policy, and it's not necessary to have an article on every bombing - Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —24.23.193.232 (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Event had significant national impact on Israel and was very widely covered by diverse sources, both in Israel and abroad, furthermore the event was discussed later in retrospective by many sources, for example in the book "The Palestine Liberation Organization: Terrorism and Prospects for Peace in the Holy Land" published in 2011, by Daniel Baracskay. Therefore it satisfies the most strict requirements of WP:EVENT. Marokwitz (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not appear to be true; searching said book for "Netanya" brings up a number of attacks, but not this one. (Unless the attack mentioned on page 153 is supposed to be this one, in which case it's a. a trivial mention anyway b. so inaccurate as to be completely worthless as a source - he says five people were killed and over one hundred injured.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, you are wrong, the book says 3 were killed and 59 injured. p.155. This is just a quick example to demonstrate that the attack has historical significance and is not merely news. Marokwitz (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bah, I missed that one - I saw the first hit on the page for "Netanya" and that was it. However, the mention is equally trivial, so this doesn't address my deletion rationale, where I already pointed out that all recent coverage is trivial and in the same breath with a bunch of other attacks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The existence of ongoing coverage in scholarly books nearly ten years later is more than enough in order to prove this event was not merely a "breaking news" with no historical significance. WP:EVENT doesn't an require in depth coverage for an infinite duration, this would be an absurd requirement. Marokwitz (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As aptly explained by Marokwitz. The fact that wars keep on repeating themselves does not make them any less then notable. Despite the generic nature of the name of the incident, substantial sources have been procured proving the long-lasting notability of the incident. Another wasteful afd.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are these that allegedly prove the lasting notability of the incident? No one has found anything more than a trivial mention in a long list of incidents. Significant coverage is absent. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage? This happened more than ten years ago. I'm surprised editors managed to find enough sources to verify this specific attack as it was one of at least hundred during those short years. I think its smart to fill up List of Palestinian suicide attacks with actual articles rather than leaving the ugly redlinks. Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, if it weren't for the bolded "Keep" at the beginning I'd have thought this was a delete argument. No significant coverage after the fact, paucity of sources, basically a routine event... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A routine event? Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's typical for Wikipedia. The only encyclopedia where minor characters in computer games are considered more notable and encyclopedic, than a "routine" suicide attack discussed by hundreds of news sources and dozens of academic sources over a timeframe of nearly 10 years. Terrorist attacks with significant national or international press coverage are inherently notable. Keeping this article serves the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference. Marokwitz (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - waste of AfD space..per Markowitz reasonings..--BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Marokwitz. another misapplication of WP:EVENT--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:33, 25 August 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.