Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Reuven Shmerling: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:17, 22 October 2017

Murder of Reuven Shmerling

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Wikipedia is not news. This incident was in the news, mostly regional, for about four days because it was called suspected terrorism. However, it appears to have been a monetary dispute. Even if it was terror, which needs a trial not news reports to confirm, there is no long-term impact or significance to a wide region. The story was covered in predominantly Jewish sources; nothing wrong with that but it fails WP:DIVERSE. No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE from four days in the regular news cycle and potential coverage (no WP:CRYSTALBALL please) on a trial is WP:ROUTINE. Remember, the affects of WP:RECENTISM on a recent story and please avoid employing a "wait and see" tactic to this AFD. WP:RAPID goes both ways and that alone has no assessment on the notability, or lack thereof, of this tragic but unnotable crime. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:RAPID. There is coverage. It actually has been confirmed as terror - Reuven Shmerling recognized as victim of terrorism, YNET, 15 October 2017 - not that this is relevant for WP:GNG / WP:NCRIME - what matters is coverage. At this point it would be crystal balling to assess the future persistent (or lack thereof) of coverage. In terms of coverage level - national level coverage is AOK for NCRIME. Notability is assessed per coverage - and in this case - 15 days of coverage - during which coverage is sufficient for those 15 days.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz read my comment about WP:RAPID -- it has no bearing on notability. Routine news reports about a crime is not a sign of notability, it's just expected. I do agree, it "would be crystal balling to assess the future persistent of coverage" which is why an article should have never been created on this incident. Until, or if, we are offered actual analysis or impact of the alleged crime, we have no indication of notability whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murders are not routine, and in this case it is not routine murder covering. In most murder cases - we have an article the next day, maybe two, and little else until the trial. In this case we have several news items coming in several spurts throughout the 15 days from the event.Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sadly, murder is routine. 437,000+ people are murdered globally on an annual basis. We cannot create 437,000 articles a year. AusLondonder (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has no encyclopedic value. Wefihe (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:RAPID as article was already created. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply "its not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" .Also WashPO is not Jewish source [1]] so its meets WP:DIVERSE too--Shrike (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont get why these articles keep getting created early and why they keep getting nominated. Would I have created this article, no. But since it has been created I think you need time to tell whether or not it gets deleted. This has been the consensus consistently on these nominations. - Galatz ^Talk 11:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a ton of sources to the article that demonstrate notability. - Galatz ^Talk 12:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This event may become notable later, in which case we should create an article then; but we cannot predict this. It might be appropriate to add this incident to List of terrorist incidents in October 2017. RolandR (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As established with hundreds of afd's, terrorist attacks in the Mideast are considered notable due to their long term and wide ranging effects on the conflict. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what long term and wide ranging effects did this attack have on "the conflict" Brewcrewer? Or does other stuff just exist and nothing else?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - WP:RAPID does not apply to this nomination. It has been 14 days since the incident and it has fallen out of the news cycle. I expected the "wait and see" !votes regardless but hope an admin gives less wait to these moot arguments.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Even a tiny bit of research into the topic would have shown you that there is a gag order on the details of the case. What do you expect them to report on meanwhile? The killers were arrested alive, so you know it will continue to be covered as their trail begins. Additionally what do you consider it stopping being covered? The fact that 4 days ago it was covered when the President visited the family, or that 2 days ago it made press because even an Arab MK went to pay a shiva call. I think the fact that the family is still sitting shiva definitely makes your assertion that its faded out a little premature. - Galatz ^Talk 17:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, hypothetically Galatz, if these assailants died after the attack and no trial took place, would we even be having this disagreement? The media commonly updates people -- there is nothing unique or analytical about it. Notability is awfully weak, if not non-existent, if you are depending on the routine announcements of a trial. Could you agree with this compromise: put the article into draft space until the subject has actual analysis and ramifications. You even agreed the article should not have been created (a passive delete) so why advocate for keeping a news story?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you read WP:BREAKING it basically agrees with exactly what I said, so the fact that I wouldn't have created it, does not mean I want it deleted, two very different things. And once again you are trying to twist my words, saying why it will still be in the news to dispute your comments that its already gone, does not infer anything if they were killed. I am simply saying that you cannot say its out of the news when there is so much left to do go, its impossible to draw a conclusion on a chain of events that didn't happen. - Galatz ^Talk 18:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Its impossible to draw a conclusion on a chain of events that didn't happen": so where is the notability Galatz? Are you implying something notable is going to come from this, eventually? We can only work with what we have. At this point, right now notability can not be established. Maybe later when (or if) this develops more than routine reporting but right now that is uncertain. We do not work with uncertainties, otherwise all our notability guidelines are rendered worthless. I'll ask again, would putting this into draft space be a reasonable compromise since you are so sure notability will be established during or after the trial?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Right now we have enough coverage to establish GNG. More than enough (a number of bursts, diverse, reliable, non local, etc). What we do not know is if this will be PERSISTENT. Hence, WP:RAPID applies. With the gag order on the case, most wiki editors who aren't aware of what's being gagged, are not able to assess potential persistence here, which in any event is crystall balling.Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @TheGracefulSlick: Stop attempting to twist words. My comment is in relation to your made up past event, and you are now trying to say I am making comment about how future stuff works. - Galatz ^Talk 13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID. Disparage article creator for rushing to start an article, and Nom for rushing to delete without running a proper WP:BEFORE when even a brief, good faith search would have shown that investigators are calling this terrorism, and that coverage is not ROUTINE (Nom has a track record of making WP:POINTy nominations of terrorist incidents for deletion.) However, article exists and, as Icewhiz states, we diverse, reliable, non local, non-routine sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, WP:HEY, kudos to User:Galatz for editing the micro stub that was into a brief, solid presentation of the facts of this case to date.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note this call for additional opinions by nom at a particular venue, despite active input hso far diff revision as of 19:49, 19 October 2017.Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize my edits were being so aggressively monitored. Thanks for the update on my neutral and brief message Icewhiz!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a routine news story with no current indication of notability or significance and therefore has no encyclopaedic value. Pincrete (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete however tragic this is to his family and friends, it simply does not have any encyclopaedic value,Huldra (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic value whatsoever. If this murder turns out to be something more than a routine crime, and if the killing has repercussions, it may be appropriate to have an article about it. Until then, put away your crystal balls, because you don't know whether this story will have "legs", and we don't keep trivial articles on the small possibility that a news story might develop into something more. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not a mass casualty incident & no apparent encyclopedic relevance. A routine news story at this point, and I'm not convinced by the suggestions that WP:RAPID is applicable here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- That it has been been declared an act of terrorism pushes this event beyond a WP:ROUTINE murder. It has also been the subject of worldwide coverage. It at least meets the WP:GNG. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Millionsandbillions' comment about terrorism has absolutely no bearing on notability as even some of the keep voters have noted. Even if it did, the sad reality is terrorism is becoming more and more routine (we literally have lists devoted toward individual months) so to say this incident is somehow unique is a misstatement. Also note that the incident has not been the subject of worldwide coverage. Lastly, anything can be covered for a few days but that does not mean it passes WP:GNG, especially when it falls under WP:NOT.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how does it fall under WP:NOT? Additionally worldwide coverage is not a requirement for WP:GNG. As discussed above we have had continuous coverage for the past couple weeks so there goes your few days comments. - Galatz ^Talk 18:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that this incident is somehow "unique", just that it satisfies the project's notability guidelines. Even if terrorism has become more routine (I'm not really sure that it has or if it is a bias towards WP:RECENCY), we shouldn't delete articles about it solely for that reason. There are sources from the US used in the article which shows that this incident has attained, if not worldwide, international coverage. I also think that this article does not fail WP:NOT; it is not a memorial, not about routine news, not making predictions about the future nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Millionsandbillions how is it not news? The media is simply rehashing the same story and giving occasional routine updates with no further analysis or indication of long-term ramifications. And a single source from The Seattle Times is not reflective of the US covering the incident or persistent international coverage. Other voters are steadfast on keeping the article despite its failure of our notability guidelines but I have hope you strongly reconsider.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So Are you saying if [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], all of which are non-Israel websites having reported on it, were in the article you would change your mind? I cant wait to see what stretch excuse you come up with next. - Galatz ^Talk 18:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All reporting the exact same story in the exact same way with no actual substance. Great, thanks; the pinnacle of why Wikipedia is not a newspaper. They are all either from October 8th or are Jewish sources reporting on what Israeli sources said. Nothing wrong with Jewish sources but it doesn't demonstrate any diversity or persistency. Galatz I am trying to have a discussion with another editor; if you are just here to disrupt it and prove how lost you are, I would appreciate if you just stepped aside. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the incident is news but it is not routine news. WP:NOTNEWS is in regards to routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities; this incident is none of these. This incident is being investigated as a terrorist incident and it is my position that gives it notability. If the motive for the murder had remained thought to be a monetary dispute, or if the investigation yet determines this was not an act of terrorism, I would !vote to delete but currently I'm inclined to include it because it is not a routine murder. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you Millionsandbillions. I happen to disagree because it is just an alleged act of terror at this point; the accused and their defense will tend to disagree and perhaps claim another motive. Only the conclusion of a trial will confirm anything so it was far too soon to even consider creating an article. Also note your quote routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities: the word "like" means it is not limited to those examples. Other things apply and there is no inherent notability to the possibility of terrorism.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal act is not like or anything near " announcements, sports, or celebrities".You have to gain consensus to change the policy.--Shrike (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope Shrike. I don't needed added consensus to make the policy more clearer for you. Routine news includes crime and NOTNEWS is regularly applied to it. Crime, and this may come as a surprise, occurs daily and the news routinely covers it because it is a "good" story that sells papers, gets viewers or online subscribers. We aren't trying to do that. That took some thinking but not that much and the fact that you write the exact same rationale inherently for these scenarios tell me you never took the time to consider that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well among many AFDs you initiated you almost(?) never gained a consensus to your view.Any crime that reported in multiple intentional news outlets is notable per our policy.--Shrike (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike just because enough editors willfully ignore this policy and damage the encyclopedia that does not make it "my view"; it is a reflection of the community. And for your "international news" statement, WP:EVENTCRIT disagrees: "A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article". And: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". Isn't it odd the policy describes violent crime and most crimes in general as routine or a media event, like I have said many times. My rationales tend to be more consistent and accurate because I take them directly from the policies I cite, not my POV.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it per WP:GNG which says if subject is discussed by the reliable sources and discussed in detail without any need to write per WP:OR then the subject is notable. But here he is part of an event then we should have an article on the event instead. Article is written from encyclopedic point-of-view so WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. Greenbörg (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbörg anything can be written in an "encyclopedic point-of-view". That doesn't mean you can just outright say NOTNEWS doesn't apply. There is no clause that says that anywhere. But whatever, if someone wants to keep an "article" they can write just about anything.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:EVENTCRIT which says "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Absolutely nothing to demonstrate this murder was of exceptional notability. AusLondonder (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm agree with @Greenbörg

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 :*{{u|Greenbörg}} anything can be written in an "encyclopedic point-of-view". That doesn't mean you can just outright say NOTNEWS doesn't apply. There is no clause that says that anywhere. But whatever, if someone wants to keep an "article" they can write just about anything.[[User:TheGracefulSlick|TheGracefulSlick]] ([[User talk:TheGracefulSlick|talk]]) 18:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' Per [[WP:EVENTCRIT]] which says "Routine kinds of news events (including '''most crimes''', accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are '''usually not notable''' unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Absolutely nothing to demonstrate this murder was of exceptional notability. [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 18:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' I'm agree with @Greenbörg