Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 March 11
2010 March 13 >

12 March 2010

  • Tapuah junction stabbing – Overturn to no consensus, defaulting to keep. Several questions are presented in this DRV, some easily answered, some not.
    1. Is Black Kite's delete close correct?
      A strong consensus says it is not, and therefore the closure has to be overturned.
    2. What should the close be overturned to?
      While a plurality supports overturning this to a straight keep, there's also significant support for a relist, implying that consensus was not clearly present in the original AfD. One must also take into account the endorse !voters, which, while not close to a numerical majority, is nonetheless rather substantial. In light of all this, I believe that overturning to no consensus is the better result.
    3. Should the debate be relisted?
      There is significant support for a relist, though clearly not a consensus for it, but I do not consider that course advisable in this case. The participation in the AfD is anything but low - the automated counter reports 14 !votes alone, and a couple editors commented without !voting. I do not see how relisting this could have much effect on clarifying the consensus.

      Moreover, AfDs over recent events tend to produce no consensus, in part because some of the questions, such as many of the factors in WP:EVENT, cannot be answered merely a few weeks after the event happened. This case is no exception, and I think a relist will probably make the consensus harder to determine, rather than easier.

      In short, because I do not believe a relist would be productive, and because there is no consensus here for a relist, I will not relist it.

    This close, of course, cannot and does not preclude another editor from renominating the article, however, I suggest that people wait a few months before renominating. – Tim Song ( talk) 05:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tapuah junction stabbing ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The issue at the afd was whether this event was a regular news event and should be deleted per wp:notnews or it was a more notable event and should be kept. A number of editors gave rationales why this was not a regular news event and thus notable. These rationales were accepted by the majority of !voters and there was a clear consensus to keep the article. Nevertheless, User:Black Kite closed the afd as a Delete, stating, "Absolutely no reasons put forward why this is not a standard news item in a violent part of the world." A basic reading of the afd discussion shows the opposite, that reasons were put forward why this is not a standard news item. Those reasons were accepted by a clear consensus. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Overturn* This event is very unique especially for Israel considering "terrorism" has decreased significantly compared to 2007-early 2008. This is the first soldier casualty in a long while, and the fact that the killer was trained at US-support academy is notable. Israel has been victim to hundreds of terrorist attacks and a handful continue to memorialized. I don't think the event qualifies as NOTNEWS. There are far irrelevant Palestinian happenings that continue to have articles, like enumerating every village that was a victim to the Arab-Israeli war. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 00:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Relist. I do not see clear consensus either way on the AfD page. Rather than overturn as a no consensus, I suggest relisting for further discussion. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • overturn Closing admin should have merely added his/her delete vote to the discussion. Clearly consensus is to keep. -- Shuki ( talk) 00:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Relist works too. NOTNEWS does not exactly apply. This is not routine announcements. The coverage is also significant from sources throughout the world (see WP:SIGCOV and WP:GEOSCOPE). The coverage details responses that equate this to recent government actions giving it more umpff than just another killing. This analysis when coupled with notability not being temporary might be enough to override continued coverage. It also looks like Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) spells it out pretty well: Wikinews would be better but this topic was discussed "by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope."
Procedurally, the admin closed it for it being only a news item. That is disputed. This with the lack of consensus means that the admin should not have closed it. Cptnono ( talk) 02:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Relist per C.Fred. No consensus to delete evident at the AfD. If anything I'd say it was leaning the other way. -- Avenue ( talk) 00:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Relist per C.Fred and Avenue. I agree that consensus seemed to be leaning the other way. -- Momma's Little Helper ( talk) 00:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • weak overturn and or relist- Have to agree with the above, that it doesn't seem like there was a (firm) consensus to delete or keep. It would serve us well to have further discussion on the topic. Umbralcorax ( talk) 02:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - My original !vote remains relevant; hard to reference without seeing the article, but I remember my reason being that hits were concentrated around the date of the event, not subsequent coverage. NOTNEWS seemed pertinent. Not a strong objection to relisting, but given the extended discussion I find claims that "clearly consensus is to keep" questionable. Shadowjams ( talk) 02:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Nothing wrong procedurally with the close. Consensus is not a vote count. Jmundo ( talk) 02:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, or secondarily, relist - the close did not seem to be an interpretation of consensus, but rather a !vote which probably should have been placed in the discussion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn per nominator.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 03:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and do not relist Close was not within discretion, consensus both in numbers and for weight of arguments was clearly for keep. If close felt otherwise he should have joined the discussion, not closed it, as Arbitrarily0 said above. DES (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn or relist - per Arbitrarily0 BorisG ( talk) 04:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. I tend to agree with the closer's argument. But I don't agree with the close; there's no consensus to delete here. There were a number of reasonably argued keeps that can't be discounted, and insufficient contributions on the delete side to outweigh the keeps to the point of a consensus. Relist at discretion. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Seriously, I'm not seeing a single well-argued keep. I'm seeing "this event is special" type arguments but no evidence of that. I too would have closed as NC (or more likely, !voted), but could you identify one or two keeps you felt made reasonable policy-based arguments? Hobit ( talk) 20:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Both brewcrewer and Arbitrarily0 pointed out coverage in reliable sources. Per WP:N, significant coverage in reliable sources is evidence of notability (the general notability guideline) and a policy-based reason to keep the article. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Of course, but WP:NOTNEWS is applicable no matter if WP:N is met. That's the whole point of NOTNEWS, we know the news gets covered in RSes and news events meet WP:N but we don't feel all such events should have articles here. What I'm saying is that I didn't see any valid arguments that WP:NOTNEWS didn't apply here. Hobit ( talk) 22:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, relist. Clear lack of consensus to delete. Applying NOTNEWS involves editorial judgment and discretion; the closer of an AFD discussion should not discount reasonable policy-related arguments even if he/she disagrees with the policy interpretation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 15:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as keep to reflect the actual consensus in the AfD, which was rather clear for retention. Alansohn ( talk) 18:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as keep - if someone wants to nominate it for delete again, they can do so. The consensus was clearly to keep this time. Breein1007 ( talk) 19:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • endorse I wish the admin had !voted and let someone else close, this begins to look too much like a "supervote". In general I'd encourage admins to !vote rather than close against the numeric consensus. That said, we do allow, and even encourage, admins to look at the strength of argument. In this case I saw no valid argument given that WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. There is not (yet) sustained coverage nor did it seem to play a significant role in later developments. So I'd have to say this is within admin discretion. Hobit ( talk) 19:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as keep per nom, Shuki, etc. Simply reading the deletion discussion shows fairly clearly that there was a rough consensus to keep, and that the closer's statement regarding what was and wasn't said is false. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 21:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as keep per nom and others. No consensus, notable event in conflict Plot Spoiler ( talk) 21:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    Can you identify any RSes covering this event 2 or more weeks after it occurred? If not, can you explain why WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply? Hobit ( talk) 22:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    Here you go: [1], [2]. It would be good if you modified your comment. Momma's Little Helper ( talk) 00:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
One sentence here, one sentence there and Wikipedia reduced to a crime blotter. -- Jmundo ( talk) 02:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
A request was made for an RS covering the event two weeks after the fact. I promptly provided 2 such references, which took me all of 30 seconds to find. Both of these reference discuss the event in the context of escalating Palestinian violence in the West Bank, after some relaxation in Israeli security policies there. There are doubtless many more, and probably dozens more in the Hebrew press. Please don't wikilawyer here. Momma's Little Helper ( talk) 03:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I should have been clear. I was hoping for non-trivial sources that would count toward WP:N on their own. I would be interested in RSes in Hebrew that provide significant coverage a few weeks later in RSes. Hobit ( talk) 06:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse my own close. There simply isn't any ongoing coverage - or if there is, it wasn't referenced in the article. This is what we have WikiNews for. Black Kite 00:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Consensus favored keeping. Argument was made that this was not a minor news blip. That's enough. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • The number of murders in the US, which have seen coverage years later and still get deleted per NOTNEWS is actually fairly large. I can think of 3 or 4 I've argued for and researched in the past (one in my userspace right now as I recall). It's obvious the direction this is going, and I hope it heralds a change in how we treat NOT:NEWS, but I suspect there are a bunch of folks who care a lot about issues in this part of the world and that is greatly biasing the discussion. I rarely argue against the numeric majority in favor of deletion and I'm doing so because this is just entirely inconsistent with how we generally do things around here. Hobit ( talk) 06:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • One example [3]. This one had 10 articles on the topic at the time and some 30 articles solely about the topic over the next 25 years. There are a fair number of others. Hobit ( talk) 06:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure, per Hobit. WP:EVENT applies here. There is no significant coverage save that within a few days of the event. The numerical superiority of those voting keep should not outweigh policy considerations and this subject simply fails WP:N. There is no "significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time," nd there is no evidence of "lasting effect", i.e. that the event acted as "a precedent or catalyst for something else." The examples of coverage a couple of weeks after the fact provided by Momma's Little Helper do not represent significant or in-depth coverage, but are rather trivial. If editors can amass exmples of more siginificant, in-depth coverage after the fact, article recreation should be considered. But the sources simply do not support recreation at this time. Tiamut talk 18:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse just saying that this is an important event does not make it so. No actual evidence was provided in the AfD that showed it was anything other than a news story. All news stories are covered in reliable sources, so saying it is covered in reliable sources is almost meaningless. Is every roadside bombing in an attack on US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan a "notable" event? If not, neither is this. This could have a line in another article, but the event itself is non-notable and nobody gave any real evidence to show that it is. nableezy - 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Deletion was correct, this is a non-notable news story. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn It is notable when a police officer murders a stranger for political or race-hate reasons. It would be notable in any country in the world. AMuseo ( talk) 19:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • A) I'm certain we don't cover this for all, or even a handful of other such cases. Can you point to an example of an article where it is covered? This has happened in the US a massive number of times (mostly 30+ years ago), the former Yugoslavia a massive number of times (15 years ago), in Germany (70 years ago), other parts of the Middle East (today), and Africa (today) a massive number of times. B) From what I can find, it appears this was as much a case of mental illness as hatred (if there is a difference). C) None of that is policy based. There was a distinct lack of policy-based arguments in the AfD too... Hobit ( talk) 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • So go and write the articles. *shrug*. The lack of such articles as written is not an argument against this one. JoshuaZ ( talk) 04:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
        • They'd be deleted in a heartbeat. See above for an example of a murder that has sources spanning 30 years. I'll try and bring that one back after this DrV but I suspect it will fail. Hobit ( talk) 16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn The overwhelming consensus of the above editors reflects a valid point. Failure by the closer to abide by consensus is troubling. Closure as delete was a rather stark failure to follow relevant wp policy. International coverage and broad coverage militates in favor of notability and keep. No need to relist, as the ample discussion at the AfD is sufficient, but I note that even relist voters above indicate that the close at the AfD was not appropriate.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn per nom. Also per Cptnono and Epeefleche. Stellarkid ( talk) 21:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn—the closing administrator has indirectly admitted that his personal opinion was the deciding factor in the closure, not actual consensus. This is a deviation from the deletion policy; the closing administrator can make a decision when there is no clear consensus. When there is, like in this AfD, the closing administrator is required to act in accordance with community consensus, and not how he sees fit. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 23:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Please redact that. I have no "personal opinion" on this other than none of the Keep !votes addressed the issue of why WP:NOTNEWS was not met. Black Kite 23:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Looking at the AFD, I see at least two editors (Brewcrewer and Shuki) explaining why they felt it was not just an everyday news story, and several other editors agreeing with them. So I can't understand why you hold that opinion. I could understand you believing their arguments were empty, but that is not what you are saying here, or what you said in your close. If you had simply acknowledged their arguments before dismissing them, I think there would have been much less objection. You have not simply disagreed with them; you have pretended they don't exist. -- Avenue ( talk) 00:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • BlackKite: I, of course, have no idea what your personal opinions might be, and whether they influenced this decision. But since you are joining in, can you agree that the above reflects a consensus that you should not have closed it as a delete, as the above editors overwhelmingly agree that there was not a consensus for delete? If so, that might be a positive step at this point towards rolling up this string, and avoid further wikidrama.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
        • I still think Black Kite (who I rarely agree with on anything) is right here. Not that this won't be overturned, but that no one has shown that there was any significant coverage after the news story broke. We let numbers trump policy, and I suspect that will happen here. But WP:EVENT is pretty darn clear. I'm as big a fan of anyone of nose counting in AfDs and DrVs, but darn it, there needs to be something other than "I think it's important" for things like this. Hobit ( talk) 01:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
          • Hobit: I respect that you have a different view. wp:event doesn't lead to the non-reflection of all events ... or else 9/11 and other one-time events (and people known for them) would not have articles. Notability can be reflected, as here, by notable (which is especially reflected in international) coverage. As to nose-counting (I know, you meant to say consensus), it is part of policy that consensus is important. And that it should be respected. Editors who don't get that routinely are rejected at RfAs, and no doubt that will be a consideration when the new "strip the sysops who violate policy" measures are articulated down the road. But yes, at the same time, I sometimes don't agree w/the view of the consensus myself--but that doesn't mean I would close an AfD against consensus, in violation of policy.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
            • Until you address the few points already brought up I think it is hard to say that your opinion is not impacting your decision. (That of course is part of decision making which is aburde you have as an admin so apologies if that comes across overly pointed) I honestly can't fault you too much for making the decision since I am sure you really were looking at it as just news. However, I do think it needed more time to encourage discussion especially with people asserting that NOTNEWS is not the only guideline based argument. You also could have easily kept based on no consensus. For now, I think it is clear that the delete needs to be undone because people aren't done talking about it. You also should read the reasoning (yes, you will have to sort through the votes with none associated) to keep above since it has been provided and ignored. There are questions with both the procedure to close and the notability overall so it needs to be straightened out in a relisted AfD. Cptnono ( talk) 04:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
              • Cptnono--Sorry to disagree. I think that the close was wrong. I think there was not a consensus to delete. I think that in such situations, it is a violation of policy for Black to close as delete. This is core Wiki policy. The above comments in this review of the close reflect IMHO a consensus that the close was incorrect, as there was not consensus to delete. In such circumstances, proper procedure would be to keep the article (whether as no consensus or consensus). More wikidrama and wasted time through a relist is not required, and IMHO is a waste of valuable time of valuable editors. Let's let them spend their time improving the project instead. Respectfully.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
                • Hey, I would be fine with it restored as an article without a delete discussion as well. It should not have been deleted but I can understand some ongoing discussion at a new AfD (or better yet the talk page) if preferred. Cptnono ( talk) 05:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
                • Just to make it clear, I have absolutely no problem in people disagreeing with my close and if it is overturned that is fine - that is, after all, what we have DRV for - but I will not accept claims that I have any other reason for closing it that way. Anyone who wants to review my 22,000+ contributions will note that practically none of them are in the I/P area, which gives the lie to the claim. Black Kite 19:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
                  • One more point of clarification from me, I wasn't trying to say your opinion on the topic but your opinion on it being NOTNEWS. It appeared to me that you thought NOTNEWS and were simply disregarding other arguments assuming that was the way it was. So no worries (from me at least) that you did something underhanded or wrong. You might have just been less diligent on this one AfD. I assume you close a fair amount so it of course will happen from time to time. Cptnono ( talk) 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Reviewing, I tend to think I would've !voted to delete on this one, but admins do not get to substitute their judgments for consensus. Ray Talk 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Actually (even if it turns out not to be the case here) they do. If an AfD has a couple of good policy based reasons for keeping an article, and ten !votes that basically say "Not notable" with no good reasons given, then the correct close is Keep. Otherwise admins are just !vote counters. AfD is not a vote. Black Kite 19:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • BlackKite -- a couple of questions. 1) Do you agree that if the consensus (not the "number of votes", but the consensus) is not to delete, then the closer is obligated to not close it as a delete? 2) Do you agree that there was not a consensus in the AfD here to delete? 3) Do you agree that the consensus here (not the 26-6 vote, or whatever it is) is to not endorse your close? Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Black Kite - not to this extent. What happened here was that Brewcrewer advanced an argument, which others endorsed, for why this news item merits coverage. Rather than evaluating the community's response to that argument, you decided yourself that it didn't hold up - inserting your opinion into that judgment. The appropriate thing for you to do, IMO, would've been to rebut Brewcrewer and vote for deletion. While for various reasons (which I will probably state if this gets relisted) I do not find Brewcrewer's argument convincing in this instance, it was not so frivolous or ignorant of Wikipedia custom as to be summarily dismissed, the way an admin might dismiss thoughtless remarks from SPAs or editors who didn't put in the time to analyze things. Ray Talk 02:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I largely agree with this though I take the position that the !votes to keep were weak enough they could, possibly, be discounted enough to reach a delete conclusion. No meaningful attempt to address the issues of NOTNEWS were made. If 10 people !voted to keep a BLP because "he's important" and 3 to delete, I'd hope in the face of no sources at all we'd delete even if the remarks were not thoughtless or frivolous. A NC would be how I'd have closed it. But delete isn't outrageous here. Hobit ( talk) 02:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Hobit: I think that that has been responded to, and is evident from the AfD page. What I am not seeing is responses by Black Kite to my questions on this page. From time spent at the RfA page, I know the 100 or so regular voters on that page regularly reject RfA requests from editors who approach this issue in the way I am concerned Black Kite may be approaching it, so for me this is a question the importance of which is far greater than this particular AfD, as no doubt Black Kite will be closing many more AfDs in the future.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Just came across this, and can't understand the closing admin's decision. It was a very close AfD, and if there was any consensus it was to Keep the article. Perhaps Relist to get a better consensus. Alzarian16 ( talk) 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as Keep Issue of NOTNEWS was addressed and rejected by consensus. This consensus was ignored by the closing administrator. Alansohn ( talk) 21:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Beating the bloody remains of the horse: Could you explain where it was addressed in any terms other than simply disagreeing? All I saw were large number of variations of WP:ILIKEIT (well more accurately ITHINKITSIMPORTANT). Hobit ( talk) 00:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Well read closer then. We shouldn't have to reiterate it for you. Cptnono ( talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
I agree, it should be plain, but I'm not seeing anything. Brewcrewer made probably the best arguments to keep. I didn't understand the relevance of the link he gave (inside joke?), but he did claim that the coverage was more in depth than normal but gave no actual examples. Adambro's arguments were easily the best of the lot, and came down neutral. No one supplied any sources that met the requirements of WP:NOTNEWS, or really any sources at all. If there were one or two RSes, in any language, that covered this more than a couple of weeks later I'd be fine with keeping this. Significant coverage outside of the region would help too. But I'm not seeing either in the AfD or the article. So NOTNEWS is very much a problem and the discussion didn't show any sourcing to show otherwise. Hobit ( talk) 02:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
There is clearly international coverage. Please review the sources and do a quick google news search. This was brought up in the edits time stamped 02:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC) and 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC) already on this page. Cptnono ( talk) 03:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn I have never seen the article. Even if the "delete" close was appropriate, the rationale was sufficiently unsatisfactory for the close to be overturned. "Absolutely no reasons put forward why this is not a standard news item" was clearly not an adequate reflection of the discussion and no analysis was given as to why Wikipedia:Notability (events) trumped Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) which was a thoughtful comment made in the discussion. However, it was good that the the closer took the time and trouble to give a rationale and so some of the criticism here seems to me to be too harsh. Thincat ( talk) 11:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_March_12&oldid=1079647273"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 March 11
2010 March 13 >

12 March 2010

  • Tapuah junction stabbing – Overturn to no consensus, defaulting to keep. Several questions are presented in this DRV, some easily answered, some not.
    1. Is Black Kite's delete close correct?
      A strong consensus says it is not, and therefore the closure has to be overturned.
    2. What should the close be overturned to?
      While a plurality supports overturning this to a straight keep, there's also significant support for a relist, implying that consensus was not clearly present in the original AfD. One must also take into account the endorse !voters, which, while not close to a numerical majority, is nonetheless rather substantial. In light of all this, I believe that overturning to no consensus is the better result.
    3. Should the debate be relisted?
      There is significant support for a relist, though clearly not a consensus for it, but I do not consider that course advisable in this case. The participation in the AfD is anything but low - the automated counter reports 14 !votes alone, and a couple editors commented without !voting. I do not see how relisting this could have much effect on clarifying the consensus.

      Moreover, AfDs over recent events tend to produce no consensus, in part because some of the questions, such as many of the factors in WP:EVENT, cannot be answered merely a few weeks after the event happened. This case is no exception, and I think a relist will probably make the consensus harder to determine, rather than easier.

      In short, because I do not believe a relist would be productive, and because there is no consensus here for a relist, I will not relist it.

    This close, of course, cannot and does not preclude another editor from renominating the article, however, I suggest that people wait a few months before renominating. – Tim Song ( talk) 05:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tapuah junction stabbing ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The issue at the afd was whether this event was a regular news event and should be deleted per wp:notnews or it was a more notable event and should be kept. A number of editors gave rationales why this was not a regular news event and thus notable. These rationales were accepted by the majority of !voters and there was a clear consensus to keep the article. Nevertheless, User:Black Kite closed the afd as a Delete, stating, "Absolutely no reasons put forward why this is not a standard news item in a violent part of the world." A basic reading of the afd discussion shows the opposite, that reasons were put forward why this is not a standard news item. Those reasons were accepted by a clear consensus. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Overturn* This event is very unique especially for Israel considering "terrorism" has decreased significantly compared to 2007-early 2008. This is the first soldier casualty in a long while, and the fact that the killer was trained at US-support academy is notable. Israel has been victim to hundreds of terrorist attacks and a handful continue to memorialized. I don't think the event qualifies as NOTNEWS. There are far irrelevant Palestinian happenings that continue to have articles, like enumerating every village that was a victim to the Arab-Israeli war. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 00:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Relist. I do not see clear consensus either way on the AfD page. Rather than overturn as a no consensus, I suggest relisting for further discussion. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • overturn Closing admin should have merely added his/her delete vote to the discussion. Clearly consensus is to keep. -- Shuki ( talk) 00:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Relist works too. NOTNEWS does not exactly apply. This is not routine announcements. The coverage is also significant from sources throughout the world (see WP:SIGCOV and WP:GEOSCOPE). The coverage details responses that equate this to recent government actions giving it more umpff than just another killing. This analysis when coupled with notability not being temporary might be enough to override continued coverage. It also looks like Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) spells it out pretty well: Wikinews would be better but this topic was discussed "by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope."
Procedurally, the admin closed it for it being only a news item. That is disputed. This with the lack of consensus means that the admin should not have closed it. Cptnono ( talk) 02:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Relist per C.Fred. No consensus to delete evident at the AfD. If anything I'd say it was leaning the other way. -- Avenue ( talk) 00:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Relist per C.Fred and Avenue. I agree that consensus seemed to be leaning the other way. -- Momma's Little Helper ( talk) 00:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • weak overturn and or relist- Have to agree with the above, that it doesn't seem like there was a (firm) consensus to delete or keep. It would serve us well to have further discussion on the topic. Umbralcorax ( talk) 02:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - My original !vote remains relevant; hard to reference without seeing the article, but I remember my reason being that hits were concentrated around the date of the event, not subsequent coverage. NOTNEWS seemed pertinent. Not a strong objection to relisting, but given the extended discussion I find claims that "clearly consensus is to keep" questionable. Shadowjams ( talk) 02:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Nothing wrong procedurally with the close. Consensus is not a vote count. Jmundo ( talk) 02:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, or secondarily, relist - the close did not seem to be an interpretation of consensus, but rather a !vote which probably should have been placed in the discussion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn per nominator.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 03:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and do not relist Close was not within discretion, consensus both in numbers and for weight of arguments was clearly for keep. If close felt otherwise he should have joined the discussion, not closed it, as Arbitrarily0 said above. DES (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn or relist - per Arbitrarily0 BorisG ( talk) 04:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. I tend to agree with the closer's argument. But I don't agree with the close; there's no consensus to delete here. There were a number of reasonably argued keeps that can't be discounted, and insufficient contributions on the delete side to outweigh the keeps to the point of a consensus. Relist at discretion. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Seriously, I'm not seeing a single well-argued keep. I'm seeing "this event is special" type arguments but no evidence of that. I too would have closed as NC (or more likely, !voted), but could you identify one or two keeps you felt made reasonable policy-based arguments? Hobit ( talk) 20:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Both brewcrewer and Arbitrarily0 pointed out coverage in reliable sources. Per WP:N, significant coverage in reliable sources is evidence of notability (the general notability guideline) and a policy-based reason to keep the article. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Of course, but WP:NOTNEWS is applicable no matter if WP:N is met. That's the whole point of NOTNEWS, we know the news gets covered in RSes and news events meet WP:N but we don't feel all such events should have articles here. What I'm saying is that I didn't see any valid arguments that WP:NOTNEWS didn't apply here. Hobit ( talk) 22:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, relist. Clear lack of consensus to delete. Applying NOTNEWS involves editorial judgment and discretion; the closer of an AFD discussion should not discount reasonable policy-related arguments even if he/she disagrees with the policy interpretation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 15:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as keep to reflect the actual consensus in the AfD, which was rather clear for retention. Alansohn ( talk) 18:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as keep - if someone wants to nominate it for delete again, they can do so. The consensus was clearly to keep this time. Breein1007 ( talk) 19:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • endorse I wish the admin had !voted and let someone else close, this begins to look too much like a "supervote". In general I'd encourage admins to !vote rather than close against the numeric consensus. That said, we do allow, and even encourage, admins to look at the strength of argument. In this case I saw no valid argument given that WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. There is not (yet) sustained coverage nor did it seem to play a significant role in later developments. So I'd have to say this is within admin discretion. Hobit ( talk) 19:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as keep per nom, Shuki, etc. Simply reading the deletion discussion shows fairly clearly that there was a rough consensus to keep, and that the closer's statement regarding what was and wasn't said is false. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 21:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as keep per nom and others. No consensus, notable event in conflict Plot Spoiler ( talk) 21:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    Can you identify any RSes covering this event 2 or more weeks after it occurred? If not, can you explain why WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply? Hobit ( talk) 22:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    Here you go: [1], [2]. It would be good if you modified your comment. Momma's Little Helper ( talk) 00:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
One sentence here, one sentence there and Wikipedia reduced to a crime blotter. -- Jmundo ( talk) 02:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
A request was made for an RS covering the event two weeks after the fact. I promptly provided 2 such references, which took me all of 30 seconds to find. Both of these reference discuss the event in the context of escalating Palestinian violence in the West Bank, after some relaxation in Israeli security policies there. There are doubtless many more, and probably dozens more in the Hebrew press. Please don't wikilawyer here. Momma's Little Helper ( talk) 03:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I should have been clear. I was hoping for non-trivial sources that would count toward WP:N on their own. I would be interested in RSes in Hebrew that provide significant coverage a few weeks later in RSes. Hobit ( talk) 06:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse my own close. There simply isn't any ongoing coverage - or if there is, it wasn't referenced in the article. This is what we have WikiNews for. Black Kite 00:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Consensus favored keeping. Argument was made that this was not a minor news blip. That's enough. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • The number of murders in the US, which have seen coverage years later and still get deleted per NOTNEWS is actually fairly large. I can think of 3 or 4 I've argued for and researched in the past (one in my userspace right now as I recall). It's obvious the direction this is going, and I hope it heralds a change in how we treat NOT:NEWS, but I suspect there are a bunch of folks who care a lot about issues in this part of the world and that is greatly biasing the discussion. I rarely argue against the numeric majority in favor of deletion and I'm doing so because this is just entirely inconsistent with how we generally do things around here. Hobit ( talk) 06:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • One example [3]. This one had 10 articles on the topic at the time and some 30 articles solely about the topic over the next 25 years. There are a fair number of others. Hobit ( talk) 06:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure, per Hobit. WP:EVENT applies here. There is no significant coverage save that within a few days of the event. The numerical superiority of those voting keep should not outweigh policy considerations and this subject simply fails WP:N. There is no "significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time," nd there is no evidence of "lasting effect", i.e. that the event acted as "a precedent or catalyst for something else." The examples of coverage a couple of weeks after the fact provided by Momma's Little Helper do not represent significant or in-depth coverage, but are rather trivial. If editors can amass exmples of more siginificant, in-depth coverage after the fact, article recreation should be considered. But the sources simply do not support recreation at this time. Tiamut talk 18:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse just saying that this is an important event does not make it so. No actual evidence was provided in the AfD that showed it was anything other than a news story. All news stories are covered in reliable sources, so saying it is covered in reliable sources is almost meaningless. Is every roadside bombing in an attack on US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan a "notable" event? If not, neither is this. This could have a line in another article, but the event itself is non-notable and nobody gave any real evidence to show that it is. nableezy - 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Deletion was correct, this is a non-notable news story. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn It is notable when a police officer murders a stranger for political or race-hate reasons. It would be notable in any country in the world. AMuseo ( talk) 19:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • A) I'm certain we don't cover this for all, or even a handful of other such cases. Can you point to an example of an article where it is covered? This has happened in the US a massive number of times (mostly 30+ years ago), the former Yugoslavia a massive number of times (15 years ago), in Germany (70 years ago), other parts of the Middle East (today), and Africa (today) a massive number of times. B) From what I can find, it appears this was as much a case of mental illness as hatred (if there is a difference). C) None of that is policy based. There was a distinct lack of policy-based arguments in the AfD too... Hobit ( talk) 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • So go and write the articles. *shrug*. The lack of such articles as written is not an argument against this one. JoshuaZ ( talk) 04:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
        • They'd be deleted in a heartbeat. See above for an example of a murder that has sources spanning 30 years. I'll try and bring that one back after this DrV but I suspect it will fail. Hobit ( talk) 16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn The overwhelming consensus of the above editors reflects a valid point. Failure by the closer to abide by consensus is troubling. Closure as delete was a rather stark failure to follow relevant wp policy. International coverage and broad coverage militates in favor of notability and keep. No need to relist, as the ample discussion at the AfD is sufficient, but I note that even relist voters above indicate that the close at the AfD was not appropriate.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn per nom. Also per Cptnono and Epeefleche. Stellarkid ( talk) 21:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn—the closing administrator has indirectly admitted that his personal opinion was the deciding factor in the closure, not actual consensus. This is a deviation from the deletion policy; the closing administrator can make a decision when there is no clear consensus. When there is, like in this AfD, the closing administrator is required to act in accordance with community consensus, and not how he sees fit. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 23:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Please redact that. I have no "personal opinion" on this other than none of the Keep !votes addressed the issue of why WP:NOTNEWS was not met. Black Kite 23:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Looking at the AFD, I see at least two editors (Brewcrewer and Shuki) explaining why they felt it was not just an everyday news story, and several other editors agreeing with them. So I can't understand why you hold that opinion. I could understand you believing their arguments were empty, but that is not what you are saying here, or what you said in your close. If you had simply acknowledged their arguments before dismissing them, I think there would have been much less objection. You have not simply disagreed with them; you have pretended they don't exist. -- Avenue ( talk) 00:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • BlackKite: I, of course, have no idea what your personal opinions might be, and whether they influenced this decision. But since you are joining in, can you agree that the above reflects a consensus that you should not have closed it as a delete, as the above editors overwhelmingly agree that there was not a consensus for delete? If so, that might be a positive step at this point towards rolling up this string, and avoid further wikidrama.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
        • I still think Black Kite (who I rarely agree with on anything) is right here. Not that this won't be overturned, but that no one has shown that there was any significant coverage after the news story broke. We let numbers trump policy, and I suspect that will happen here. But WP:EVENT is pretty darn clear. I'm as big a fan of anyone of nose counting in AfDs and DrVs, but darn it, there needs to be something other than "I think it's important" for things like this. Hobit ( talk) 01:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
          • Hobit: I respect that you have a different view. wp:event doesn't lead to the non-reflection of all events ... or else 9/11 and other one-time events (and people known for them) would not have articles. Notability can be reflected, as here, by notable (which is especially reflected in international) coverage. As to nose-counting (I know, you meant to say consensus), it is part of policy that consensus is important. And that it should be respected. Editors who don't get that routinely are rejected at RfAs, and no doubt that will be a consideration when the new "strip the sysops who violate policy" measures are articulated down the road. But yes, at the same time, I sometimes don't agree w/the view of the consensus myself--but that doesn't mean I would close an AfD against consensus, in violation of policy.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
            • Until you address the few points already brought up I think it is hard to say that your opinion is not impacting your decision. (That of course is part of decision making which is aburde you have as an admin so apologies if that comes across overly pointed) I honestly can't fault you too much for making the decision since I am sure you really were looking at it as just news. However, I do think it needed more time to encourage discussion especially with people asserting that NOTNEWS is not the only guideline based argument. You also could have easily kept based on no consensus. For now, I think it is clear that the delete needs to be undone because people aren't done talking about it. You also should read the reasoning (yes, you will have to sort through the votes with none associated) to keep above since it has been provided and ignored. There are questions with both the procedure to close and the notability overall so it needs to be straightened out in a relisted AfD. Cptnono ( talk) 04:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
              • Cptnono--Sorry to disagree. I think that the close was wrong. I think there was not a consensus to delete. I think that in such situations, it is a violation of policy for Black to close as delete. This is core Wiki policy. The above comments in this review of the close reflect IMHO a consensus that the close was incorrect, as there was not consensus to delete. In such circumstances, proper procedure would be to keep the article (whether as no consensus or consensus). More wikidrama and wasted time through a relist is not required, and IMHO is a waste of valuable time of valuable editors. Let's let them spend their time improving the project instead. Respectfully.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
                • Hey, I would be fine with it restored as an article without a delete discussion as well. It should not have been deleted but I can understand some ongoing discussion at a new AfD (or better yet the talk page) if preferred. Cptnono ( talk) 05:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
                • Just to make it clear, I have absolutely no problem in people disagreeing with my close and if it is overturned that is fine - that is, after all, what we have DRV for - but I will not accept claims that I have any other reason for closing it that way. Anyone who wants to review my 22,000+ contributions will note that practically none of them are in the I/P area, which gives the lie to the claim. Black Kite 19:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
                  • One more point of clarification from me, I wasn't trying to say your opinion on the topic but your opinion on it being NOTNEWS. It appeared to me that you thought NOTNEWS and were simply disregarding other arguments assuming that was the way it was. So no worries (from me at least) that you did something underhanded or wrong. You might have just been less diligent on this one AfD. I assume you close a fair amount so it of course will happen from time to time. Cptnono ( talk) 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Reviewing, I tend to think I would've !voted to delete on this one, but admins do not get to substitute their judgments for consensus. Ray Talk 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Actually (even if it turns out not to be the case here) they do. If an AfD has a couple of good policy based reasons for keeping an article, and ten !votes that basically say "Not notable" with no good reasons given, then the correct close is Keep. Otherwise admins are just !vote counters. AfD is not a vote. Black Kite 19:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • BlackKite -- a couple of questions. 1) Do you agree that if the consensus (not the "number of votes", but the consensus) is not to delete, then the closer is obligated to not close it as a delete? 2) Do you agree that there was not a consensus in the AfD here to delete? 3) Do you agree that the consensus here (not the 26-6 vote, or whatever it is) is to not endorse your close? Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Black Kite - not to this extent. What happened here was that Brewcrewer advanced an argument, which others endorsed, for why this news item merits coverage. Rather than evaluating the community's response to that argument, you decided yourself that it didn't hold up - inserting your opinion into that judgment. The appropriate thing for you to do, IMO, would've been to rebut Brewcrewer and vote for deletion. While for various reasons (which I will probably state if this gets relisted) I do not find Brewcrewer's argument convincing in this instance, it was not so frivolous or ignorant of Wikipedia custom as to be summarily dismissed, the way an admin might dismiss thoughtless remarks from SPAs or editors who didn't put in the time to analyze things. Ray Talk 02:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I largely agree with this though I take the position that the !votes to keep were weak enough they could, possibly, be discounted enough to reach a delete conclusion. No meaningful attempt to address the issues of NOTNEWS were made. If 10 people !voted to keep a BLP because "he's important" and 3 to delete, I'd hope in the face of no sources at all we'd delete even if the remarks were not thoughtless or frivolous. A NC would be how I'd have closed it. But delete isn't outrageous here. Hobit ( talk) 02:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Hobit: I think that that has been responded to, and is evident from the AfD page. What I am not seeing is responses by Black Kite to my questions on this page. From time spent at the RfA page, I know the 100 or so regular voters on that page regularly reject RfA requests from editors who approach this issue in the way I am concerned Black Kite may be approaching it, so for me this is a question the importance of which is far greater than this particular AfD, as no doubt Black Kite will be closing many more AfDs in the future.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Just came across this, and can't understand the closing admin's decision. It was a very close AfD, and if there was any consensus it was to Keep the article. Perhaps Relist to get a better consensus. Alzarian16 ( talk) 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as Keep Issue of NOTNEWS was addressed and rejected by consensus. This consensus was ignored by the closing administrator. Alansohn ( talk) 21:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Beating the bloody remains of the horse: Could you explain where it was addressed in any terms other than simply disagreeing? All I saw were large number of variations of WP:ILIKEIT (well more accurately ITHINKITSIMPORTANT). Hobit ( talk) 00:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Well read closer then. We shouldn't have to reiterate it for you. Cptnono ( talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
I agree, it should be plain, but I'm not seeing anything. Brewcrewer made probably the best arguments to keep. I didn't understand the relevance of the link he gave (inside joke?), but he did claim that the coverage was more in depth than normal but gave no actual examples. Adambro's arguments were easily the best of the lot, and came down neutral. No one supplied any sources that met the requirements of WP:NOTNEWS, or really any sources at all. If there were one or two RSes, in any language, that covered this more than a couple of weeks later I'd be fine with keeping this. Significant coverage outside of the region would help too. But I'm not seeing either in the AfD or the article. So NOTNEWS is very much a problem and the discussion didn't show any sourcing to show otherwise. Hobit ( talk) 02:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
There is clearly international coverage. Please review the sources and do a quick google news search. This was brought up in the edits time stamped 02:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC) and 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC) already on this page. Cptnono ( talk) 03:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn I have never seen the article. Even if the "delete" close was appropriate, the rationale was sufficiently unsatisfactory for the close to be overturned. "Absolutely no reasons put forward why this is not a standard news item" was clearly not an adequate reflection of the discussion and no analysis was given as to why Wikipedia:Notability (events) trumped Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) which was a thoughtful comment made in the discussion. However, it was good that the the closer took the time and trouble to give a rationale and so some of the criticism here seems to me to be too harsh. Thincat ( talk) 11:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_March_12&oldid=1079647273"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE