Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Sergeant Almog Shiloni

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 no consensus. The discussion has not yielded a consensus for one particular resulting action regarding the article. NorthAmerica1000 22:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Sergeant Almog Shiloni

Killing of Sergeant Almog Shiloni (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)

There are many of Palestinians killed, just in the last couple of weeks. Like 22-year-old Kheir Hamdan, in Galilee, or 21-year-old Mohammad Imad Jawabra (see http://www.imemc.org/article/69681). None of these are given a Wikipedia article, so why one for Almog Shiloni? Are all Jewish victims notable, while Palestinian victims are non-notable? Huldra (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Huldra recently nominated Palestinian stone-throwing, [1] a new article of mine, for deletion with similarly insubstantial arguments. And has also just nominated Killing of Yehoshua Weisbrod for deletion within an hour or 2 of its creation.ShulMaven (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
sigh True enough. However, I believe the deletion of the Netanel Arami article to have been ill-judged, Article was about a work accident in which construction worker suspended by ropes, fell to his death. Public clamor ensued with politicians claiming that police were failing to investigate possible hate crime. Rope was found to have been cut. Inter-ethnic hate crime is suspected, but press coveerage temporarily halted due to a gag order pt in place by Shin Bet. It is likely to regain notability when the gag order is lifted, as occurred with the Murder of Shelly Dadon.ShulMaven (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This attack has has been very widely covered nationally and meetings the WP:GNG criteria. Lack of other articles is not cause for deletion of an article. - Galatz (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Galatz and because impact of the killing on political developments is esablished in the article.ShulMaven (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is a bad-faith deletion request. Terrorists are not victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.175.239.168 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 13 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, eye pee, your pee oh vee is showing... Carrite (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Galatz. This attack was also unique because it happened in broad daylight, in a major train station, deep within Israeli sovereign territory. Also note that Huldra didn't even make any policy-based arguments in this deletion request -- just a naked example of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The absence of a bunch of comparable spam articles on Arabs who were killed is ultimately not relevant, but Wikipedia is not a news source and if the event proves to be notable by attaining persistent coverage or having a significant effect, the article can be re-created. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except WP:NOTTEMPORARY.ShulMaven (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out to you at the other AFD, it would have to be notable in the first place for "notability is not temporary" to be relevant! And that link in fact specifically explains that WP:NOTNEWS and the WP:EVENT notability guideline still apply. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Huldra: This seems a typical case of "I don't like it". Just for the record, Kheir Hamdan was killed while attacking a group of policemen with a knife without previous provocation, in this case Almog Shiloni was an innocent victim of a clear terrorist attack. He was speaking on the phone to his girlfriend when he was murdered. It belongs to the long list of atrocities perpetrated by Palestinian terrorist organizations and Wikipedia should not censor this information, which is supported by reliable sources like known newspapers.--Keramiton (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • He bangs on the door of the police van, then he clearly backs away. Then he was shot. Watch the video. These later attacks have all come as a response to this first police killing, however, that isn´t even mentioned. Insanity, indeed. Huldra (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article is just one in a long, long list. Take Armanious family massacre: horrible as it was, the only reason that it got an article on Wikipedia was because one speculated that Muslim extremist were behind it. If one had known from the start that it was just horribly drug-related murders, I doubt it would have been notable for Wikipedia. (Read the earliest versions of that article to see.) Huldra (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Galatz, ShulMaven, and Plot Spoiler. There exists an article on basically every terrorist attack that resulted in deaths. Why should this be different? Inkbug (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Huldra.--159.130.70.71 (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with above reasons to keep. - Joxemai (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per GNG. Quis separabit? 21:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Somedifferentstuff is hounding me after a disagreement on another Palestine-related article.ShulMaven (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTTRUECRIME. Ordinary death in a never ending civil war. Carrite (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er @Carrite: What is WP:NOTTRUECRIME?? Also, this warfare is not a civil war by any stretch of the imagination. Quis separabit? 00:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Headlines around world meet WP:GNG. Ongoing political consequences covered in article.ShulMaven (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
I know there has been a fair amount of discussion here, but there's no real consensus yet. The issues here are serious enough that I think it's worth talking about for another week to see if a clear consensus one way or the other emerges.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but we cannot keep relisting indefinitely until consensus is reached. Sometimes there will be no consensus. Quis separabit? 16:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this AFD to, for example Shooting of Michael Cho which underwent a brief AFD before being speedy kept or to articles such as 2014 Queens hatchet attack, 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack and Murder of Lee Rigby none of which was proposed for AFD, while articles about deadly attacks on Israelis such as 2014 Jerusalem tractor attack get put through AFD not once, but twice, does make it appear that some editors hold Wikipedia articles related to Israel to different standards than articles regarding murders in English-speaking countries.ShulMaven (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see a consensus (focusing on !votes of established editors), but have no problem with further discussion. The sourcing in the article has only gotten stronger since the discussion started. Epeefleche (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least 10 times as many Palestinian civilians killed any year as there are Israeli Jewish people killed. Yet on Wikipedia there are more articles about Israeli Jewish victims than about Palestinian victims. Why is that? Why is an Israeli Jewish victim "worth" 10+++ times more attention than a Palestinian victim on Wikipedia? Different standards, indeed. Huldra (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So go write some appropriate articles on those events that are notable by wp standards and not covered. And read wp:otherstuffexists. Which addresses your point. Saying specifically:

"The claim of "Other Stuff Exists" most often arises in article deletion debate, where it is often used in a poor manner. Examples:... Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt!".

It's not cause for you to nominate for deletion articles on notable events, which articles cover matters that your POV wishes wp would not cover. Epeefleche (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine in theory, but in reality we both know that one side is actively recruiting to Wikipeda, and the other is not (AFAIK). I find it peculiar that only murders committed (or possibly committed ) by Arabs to be counted noteworthy by some editors. I saw a horrible story about a litte Jewish girl murdered in Israel, alas, as she "only" had been killed by her (Jewish) father: no Wikipedia article for her! Huldra (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. I second @Epeefleche's comments. I think it's time to close out this AFD as no consensus -- is is now generating far more heat than light. And @Huldra, in re Palestinian victims -- if you can find individuals who qualify as notable, then as per @Epeefleche: "So go write some appropriate articles on those events that are notable by wp standards and not covered". Go create. And if the individuals genuinely qualify as notable they won't be AFDed. Quis separabit? 00:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately it's just one in a series of similar attacks in just a few weeks. Nothing special to seperate it from the sequence of events. DGtal (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user DGtal, this is not a vote or poll, it is an attempt to establish policy by consensus. For this reason you need to give a policy-based reason for deletion. Many notable things happen in series of similar events in a few weeks: Broadway openings, earthquakes, sex celebrity sex scandals - we judge each event discretely , according to whether it meets GNG.ShulMaven (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Galatz, ShulMaven, Plot Spoiler and Inkbug. It's not WP:NOTNEWS. as for somebody here, but important event of terror for Israel with its significant consequences. In my opinion it's aleady enough. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I made the mistake of reading through this AfD discussion. While I can see why some parties may consider a "no consensus" closing more pleasing (i.e., the article will be de facto kept), the only real policy arguments I see are that WP is not news (Drmies's previously linked rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Netanel Arami is useful here), which leans the opposite way. I'm going to recommend that those arguing that this topic "meets the GNG" actually use those GNG sources to explain why this killing transcends just "news", ideally with quotes that mark this case as particularly notable over the regular killings in the news. czar ⨹ 16:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The events that journalists refer to as "ordinary murders," the tragic killings of family, friends, and lovers, along with such events as bar brawls are personal tragedies, but they are rarely notable. Criminal killings are similarly mostly not notable, unless the crime or one of the involved parties is notable. But this murder was an act of terrorism, it has ethno-national implications, such killings are of inherent and ongoing interest to many people, which is why it received widespread and intensive press coverage, and why it meets GNG.ShulMaven (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get that GNG argument but I'm asking whether those GNG sources can be used to show that the case is notable, such as through quotes and journalist commentary within the sources (that would be what would show this to be more than just "news"). czar ⨹ 18:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Impossible to compare to random crime. The sources in the lede are indicative on why this event has international and long term ramifications. I invite proposer to renominate in 6 months to a year if they are proven correct and this does not have long term notability. I don't understand how anyone can know now that this will have no long term notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:35, 1 December 2014 (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/Killing_of_Sergeant_Almog_Shiloni&oldid=1083980048"