Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. If this is a POVFORK, I'm not seeing it, nor is the argument being made here. Operation Pillar of Defense is 140k - my dear old Grandmother has no chance of reading it on her dial-up modem before she needs to go down for her afternoon nap. Won't anybody think of her? Spinning out a section of such a large article is exactly what's supposed to happen. It isn't duplicating the single sentence in the main article, it's providing in-depth coverage in a daughter article. I don't find the NOT#NEWS argument very well made either - maybe it's because I'm not Israeli that I don't open my daily to read about which buses exploded yesterday, but that argument would need to be made, rather than asserted, and it's not. WilyD 11:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing

edit
2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing (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)

This is an unnecessary WP:POVFORK. Had the attack occurred outside of the events of the conflict, it might have been notable enough for an article; however, this attack occurred during the course of Operation Pillar of Defense and the information belongs in that article.  Ryan Vesey 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am voting keep below. Ryan Vesey 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the attack was not perpetrated by the combatants proper, perhaps it does merit its own article. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. NickSt (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To start with, I think that most people could tell I have a pro-Israel bias; however, this article is overwhelmingly Pro-Israel and includes information on sweet cakes that was taken out of the original article. That is the definition of a POVFORK, failing to get your way in one article and creating a new article to include that information. Ryan Vesey 21:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding of POVFORK is that it concerned subjects that were inherently POV. This idea that your broach -- that editors are tying to include content that was removed from another article -- does not really make sense. What is to say that there will be any more success in the next article? You need a consensus, reliable sources, etc... If there was a consensus for non-inclusion in one article there probably will be same consensus in any other article that will be created.
  • That being said, regarding the specific issue of Arabs reacting to the bus bombing of civilians by celebrating instead of condemning, it is clearly worthy of inclusion. It is notable and cited by multiple reliable sources. Can you please point to a talk page consensus for removal of this information? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This attack was a small part of the larger hostilities, to make articles for each of the individual attacks that made up the conflict is ridiculous. We do not need this article or any other articles such as one on the bombing of the Dalu family being made as these events are already covered in great enough detail, and linked to all apposite references, in the proper article already. Sepsis II (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons Sepsis II and Sue_Rangell mentioned above. In the latest round of hostilities between Israel and Gaza, much bloodier strikes took place, specialy in the Gaza Strip. Why should this event in particular, which hasn't even produced a single casualty of the almost 170 deaths of the conflict, merit an entry of its own, while much more important ones have not, is beyond me. I take this as further evidence of systemic bias in Wikipedia. Guinsberg (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rationale given is 'PVFORK" - a fork is the the creation of multiple article about the same subject , but there is nothing to indicate that this event is the same subject as the operation in Gaza. It happened in a different place, by different participants. It has nothing in common with the Gaza operation other than happening during the same week-long time frame. סוף-סוף (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — סוף-סוף (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that. According to the article, what is currently known is that the Israeli police have said that the man they arrested on suspicion of planting the bomb was "connected to the Hamas and Islamic Jihad militant groups", both of which were combatants in Operation Pillar of Defense.[1] Sean.hoyland - talk 09:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. this was a mass-casualty attack carried out by an Israeli citizen (!) of Arab descent, whom perhaps was motivated by Operation Pillar of Defense. The attack is also notable since it was committed against many innocent civilians in the heart of Israel (unlike for instance the many attacks committed against Israeli soldiers guarding the border, which do not get independent articles) simply because the targets were Israeli. Also, as it has already been stated, the event was widely covered in the Israeli media and the international media. Terrorist attacks with significant national or international press coverage are inherently notable. I really do not understand how anyone can think this event is not significant enough to have it's own separate article. I assume you would have never attempted to argue that this event is not significant enough for it's own article or that it is a POV fork if the article was about a mass-casualty attack carried out in the United States or Europe - for example, would you have also suggested that we merge a similar attack carried out by an American-Arab in midtown Manhattan, whom was motivated by the ongoing War in Afghanistan, to the article War in Afghanistan (2001–present) for the same reasons? In any case, the article still needs to be significantly expanded. I would do my best to expand it as soon as possible. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NOTNEWS, part of a larger conflict and appropriately covered at a different woefully named article. A similar article could be created on say this or this or this, each of which was widely covered by reliable sources worldwide. nableezy - 19:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheCuriousGnome. POVFork criteria doesn't apply. Only real criteria for deletion is NOTNEWS, which I think CuriousGnome sufficiently addresses. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:EVENT - there is nothing that I can see that suggests that this event has had or will have any significant lasting effects that could make it notable. Are there any sources that discuss the bombing that weren't published on the day? I don't find TheCuriousGnome's argument convincing as no event is 'inherently notable' regardless of whether it receives international coverage. SmartSE (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- there are many sources that discuss the bombing that weren't published on that day. Without question. I would think a simple gnews search would make that self-evident.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rocket attack is fundamentally different from the bus bombing. We don't know whether or not both were ordered by the same command structure. But the bus bomber knew his victims. There can be no claim of unintentionality. A rocket can go off course and kill civilians. But the bus bomber knew that he was targeting noncombatants. This is a different sort of event from the majority of activities taking place during this time. Almost all of the hostilities took the form of rocket attacks. A separate article is justified by an event that stands apart from the rocket attacks both in its technique and in its knowing targeting of civilians. Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Nishidani about this being evidence of use of Wikipedia to showcase national victimism. BilalSaleh (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as nominator): I was only slightly confident that the article was a POVFORK when I nominated it. My largest reason for nominating was that I felt like this article was created to include information about the Palestinian reaction that was deemed inappropriate for the article on the conflict. I now realize a few things. First, although the information on sweetcakes was removed, that information is likely appropriate for this article. It would have been given undue weight in Operation Pillar of Defense, but is directly related to the attack here. The comments from others in this AfD have also shown that while this occurred during operations, it does not seem directly related to those operations even if it was spurred by those operations. This was a terrorist attack that appears notable, especially due to the effect it could have had on the ceasefire. That information is not currently included in the article, but should be since it was covered widely in the media. Ryan Vesey 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos. The times are few ... and fewer today than in the past, I believe ... that I've seen wp editors show the maturity and honesty to take a second look and change their !vote, even after taking a strong position. It is a sign of highly commendable personal characteristics, especially in a project that at times seems filled with views that are overly partisan and lacking in some of the more admirable characteristics reflected in Ryan's re-look at his nomination.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I.e.,those who argued on policy grounds for delete are dishonest and immature. Congratulations.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is yours alone. It of course may or may not be true. Indeed, one could perhaps not be faulted overly for viewing your comment as an example of res ipsa loquitur. But that is certainly not what was said or intended.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's no doubt a remarkable form of deductive genius to attribute a self-attributed statement to the person who said it, and make the wrong Latin gloss, which in your regard should read:quid rides? mutato nomine de te fabula narratur.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—this attack was indeed separate from Operation Pillar of Defense, but even if it hadn't been, that alone is not reason to delete. We have many articles about events within other events, especially on the subject of military history. I've written a few dozen articles about specific battles inside wars myself. The reason this attack is notable on its own is because it is a bombing attack inside central Israel (specifically, Tel Aviv), something that's very significant in the context of the conflict (as outright stated by sources). As a symbolic event, it is one of the most notable events during the period of Operation Pillar of Defense. Having said that, whatever the event's importance, it easily passes GNG. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The stated rationale for deletion (since withdrawn), namely that the article is a POV fork, is clearly false: as a rule we have individual articles on bus bombings. This bus bombing happened to take place during a wider flare-up, so it happened to be mentioned in a different article. The withdrawal of the deletion nomination was correct. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What rule is that again? nableezy - 15:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. No deaths, which is one fewer than the dead 10 month old Palestinian infant killed in the Israeli terror attacks on Gaza (as seen in the current issue of Time magazine...) Whoops, thats other stuff doesn't exist, right? I'm sick of this one-sided civil war coverage. Whoops, that's a don't like it argument, isn't it? We'll stick to NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Dominus. Lacks persistence as an event. WP:NOT#NEWS applies; it might have made wikinewsy, but this is an encyclopedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at these sources before pasting them? They are a collection of passing mentions and another is about government officials getting certificates in a ceremony, nearly all from two newspapers, one of which appears to be quite dubious at best Arutz Sheva. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually, I did. They are a mix. Some is passing, some is devoted to the subject of this article, and some is in between. They are from a number of sources, in a number of countries, and certainly include a number of sources which are appropriate for purposes of notability. They certainly contradict your statement that it lacks persistent coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can you have persistent coverage of something that happended less than three weeks ago? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have it all the time. Otherwise -- obviously -- we would never have any article on wp until there was coverage for more than three weeks. And, similarly, we don't delete based on crystal-balling subjectively our guess that there will not be coverage in the future ... when there has been consistent coverage, in a number of countries at that, for the three weeks since the incident. Just as we don't crystal ball that something will in the future have coverage, see wp:crystal, we don't do the opposite in the face of persistent coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bwaaaaa, haaaaa, haaaaa, haaaaa, haaaaaaa! Best one I've heard in a long while! Pull the other one. It's got bells on it! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your thoughtful response.
It goes without saying, I would have thought, that shortly after an event occurs, editors cannot know whether the event will receive further coverage or not. If not impossible, it may well be difficult to determine. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make the event non-notable. Persistence in this instance refers to coverage limited to the time period during or immediately after an event. We in this case have continuing coverage in the third week after the event, on three continents. There is nothing objective in what we have before us that suggests that this should be deleted because of lack of persistent coverage -- just the opposite, frankly. If anyone were to reference the rule on persistent coverage, I would have thought it would be a keep !voter. I imagine that's why most of the !voters on this page have so far !voted keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2012 (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/2012_Tel_Aviv_bus_bombing&oldid=1223523000"