The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. There is clearly no consensus here in either direction after a substantial discussion. ATraintalk 06:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: In closing, unfortunately I must stress this because of past personal attacks: I do not have a bias or prejudice against Israeli victims, and I will not tolerate any editor who accuses me of this fallacy again in an attempt to derail another discussion. If you cannot enter this discussion civilly and objectively, do not participate. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note:TheGracefulSlick I do understand your point of view, but since this article is about an incident that occured six years ago and since there are other articles about these 'aged' incidents as well (like the 2008 Jerusalem vehicular attack and the 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing, similar attacks in scale and noteworthiness), the criteria of what fits and what not becomes rather difficult to establish. Should all these articles about the more 'amaturistic low-casualty attacks' be removed? Despite the fact that these incidents didn't have a long-term impact they're still relatively rare in Israel. Attacks like the 2011 nightclub attack didn't occur very often in Tel Aviv. I occasionally check the article when I observe the 'more significant' attacks on the list of terrorist incidents in Israel in 2011. In my opinion, the 2011 night club attack is distinguishable from other attacks in Israel and despite the shortlived media attention, fits the other criteria for a Wikipedia article.JBergsma1 (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JBergsma1 you have a right to your opinion but I demonstrated why it fails every aspect of WP:EVENTCRIT and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Right now, I am focused on this specific incident, not other stuff. Remember, rarity or "perceived importance" are arguments we try to avoid. Attacks in Israel are, unfortunately, common on both sides. Can you demonstrate why we should ignore EVENTCRIT; what "other criteria are you describing?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TheGracefulSlick I'm not saying that we should ignore EVENTCRIT. The problem with EVENTCRIT is that it is based around interpretation. What are the boundaries between an article that is 'notable' and therefore suitable for Wikipedia and an article that doesn't fit per WP:NOTNEWS? How notable must an attack be to make it suitable for Wikipedia? The guidelines indicate this to some extent but for the rest it takes interpretation. In my own interpretation this incident does fit WP:V and WP:RS, since the sources seem to be considered reliable for Wikipedia. Next to that, the 'WP:OSE' and 'WP:Subjective importance are essay's and not the guidelines of Wikipedia's. Therefore I think it is suitable here to make the comparisson with 'similar attacks' for the long term about why these should exist and this one not. I haven't decided yet whether the article should be kept or deleted. I do agree for the most part on what you just mentioned, but considering this article not 'noteworthy' on only the fact of shortlived media coverage seems to me quite bluntly.JBergsma1 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JBergsma1 short-lived media coverage is a big part of WP:NOTNEWS but that is not the sole purpose for my nomination; I mostly applied EVENTCRIT. The sources came in brief spurts, mirrored each other, and any impacts were immediate and local. If this were truly notable, other outlets would analyze it, not just repeat the same story. Also, I mentioned those essays because they help us determine arguments we should avoid at an AfD -- if we are following policy that is (more at WP:ATA). Verifiability, for instance, is not a gauge of notability. In addition, when a source follows a common narrative, it is sometimes considered a WP:PRIMARY source. I can gladly discuss the other incidents at another time but I hope you will support my rationale here and enforce the policies I noted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand, I took another look and it seems that this incident was indeed not very notable considering WP:NOTNEWS.JBergsma1 (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. This is a classic example of why terror attack articles most definitely need a revisit after the proverbial smoke has cleared. There are notable terror attacks even on a small scale like this one, but this isn't one of them. The lack of historical significance is precisely as nom has stated. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BigHaz I don't disagree with you, but can you tell me what would've made this article more significant? Would it have been a higher death toll or more sophistication? I'm also kind of curious to the small scale attacks you're refering to that are considered notable. What makes an incident historically significantJBergsma1 (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)\Reply[reply]
Good questions all (and if you want to respond to what I'm saying here, no need for the ping, as I've got this one watchlisted). In addition to the points Slick has raised in your discussion above, I would say that - bloodthirsty as it may sound - an attack with a higher death toll is more likely to be significant. Sophistication doesn't really enter into it for me, to be frank. The more recent vehicle attacks in Europe weren't desperately sophisticated, but I'd be surprised if they would fail notability in six years' time, for example. For mine, it's the lasting-significance piece that comes into play the most. While there's an argument in this article that says this was a forerunner of your Nices and Berlins, that doesn't seem to be a widely-held view. The NOTNEWS aspect also comes into play, but that's been discussed above. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And since I've just realised I didn't address it, I can't specifically think of any small-scale attacks like this which are notable right off the top of my head, so perhaps I should have said "I'm sure there are..." there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Well-sourced and notable insofar as this incident is part of an ongoing wave of terrorism that has spread all over the world. Deletion of this article will require deletion of thousands of similar articles about terrorist attacks worldwide.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The incident is certainly part of ongoing Isr-Pal conflict, but nothing in the article suggests that the event is in any way part of any "wave of terrorism that has spread all over the world".Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources in the article and the literature on terrorism in general support the idea that anti-Israel terrorism from the early airplane hijackings to the recent stabbing attacks have been role models for terrorists and jihadis.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Keep. Added sentencing for perp, and coverage of the rehabilitation and return to service of one of the victims - years after the attack. Meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT.Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I demonstrated how it doesn't pass either of those policies but sure. How does the recovery of two victims meet any requirement for notability? Are victims supposed to stay injured? It is just a "feel good" story after the fact with no major importance. Surely you know this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is in depth coverage of an aspect of the attack. Editor opinion regarding historical importance is not a valid deletion rationale. Coverage (LASTING, DIVERSE, etc etc) is key to determining GNG as long as it is not a WP:NOT fail. In this case we have lasting coverage in RS.Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, my bad, you actually did not know. My apologies. "In-depth", more like WP:ROUTINE. Those people did not just fall off the face of the earth after the attack; journalists will briefly revisit them because it is a good story. Historical importance is not an opinion but a necessity covered by WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:LASTING. Unless that injured individual was notable himself, where is the importance? All you did was further demonstrate why Wikipedia is not a newspapers (hey look a WP:NOT).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fact checking GracefulSlick. It is nowhere written that all of the indici listed under "inclusion criteria" in WP:NCRIME need to be met, let alone that such criteria as GEOSCOPE need to be met according to the opinion of any individual editor. These are indici, not requirements. There will necessarily be articles that meet only some of them, just as there will be differences of opinion on how to interpret these indici of notability which, in the final analysis, are a matter of editor judgment reached by consensus. Not of any single editor's opinion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete after ensuring content is covered in any apprpriate list articles. Incident received shortlived media coverage and fails WP:NOTABILITY, sadly an event which impacted on the individuals, but which had no long-term consequence nor in-depth analysis to justify a seperate article. Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments by JBergman and Pincrete were made before article was expanded with ongoing coverage negating their "shortlived coverage" rationale.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCRIME also reported by WP:DIVERSE sources make it notable.WP:NEWS doesn't apply in this case as it not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities"--Shrike (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually Shrike, that's exactly what this is -- routine news reporting. And you misused WP:DIVERSE: when sources mirror each other or share a common story, it is called narrative reporting and it is often considered a WP:PRIMARY source, sorry to say.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No there is nothing routine per our policy.The Source report same incidents that doesn't mean the mirror each other do you claim that NY post mirror Ynet?--Shrike (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Before it is falsely used as proof of analysis, this book source Gregory used passively mentions the attack in one sentence. As we all know, passing mentions are not the in-depth analysis we seek or an example of continued coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Deleting this article would result in a loss of function for Wikipedia because it is linked form other articles including Stabbing as a terrorist tactic, Vehicle-ramming attack and Haoman 17, although merging this to the nightclub's article would have an WP:UNDUE impact on that article. I also note that there is a steady drumbeat of hits on this article, ~10 a day, with occassional spikes to 200-300 hundred hits a day, which confirms that this article serves our users. My primary argument, however, is that just as edifices are made of individual bricks, Wikipedia is built of individual articles that can be linked, as this article is, from articles like Vehicle-ramming attack, enabling readers to delve into important topics like terrorism. Moreover, article is strongly sourced to WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS the year it happened and some ongoing coverage the years since, and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Plus, WP:HEY editors responded to this AfD by adding coverage of this attack years after it took place, including a book I just added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You really need to read WP:ATA. Linked to other articles? Web search hits? What terribly weak arguments. WP:SIGCOV; no, those are news reports. For once, I would love to see a response from you that actually follows our policies. But yes, I'll WP:AGF and stop WP:BLUDGEONing, as you'll inevitably respond to me with.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I believe casualties should be the "litmus test" to determine if an attack is notable or not. And if no one was killed, then I don't think the attack meets the notability test. ImTheIP (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Body counts are not a valid deletion rationale grounded in policy (for inclusion or deletion).Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Casualty counts are not a policy-based criterion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is what we call a common circumstance. Of course, the media gives a brief background of the perp but "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage". More importantly, for you to know: "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:HEY The point of citing ongoing coverage such as Joshua Keating's Why Terrorists Use Vehicles as Weapons Slate [1], Slate (magazine), 5 November 2014; and Truck Attacks: Low-Tech, Soft Target Terrorism Is Growing Threat,[2], NBC News, 20 December 2016, is that interest in this attack IS ongoing, which may explain the periodic spikes when this article gets clusters of hundreds of page views. When journalists are citing an incident that happened years ago, our users do expect there to be an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The actual point is to find any source that passively mentions the incident to fabricate "ongoing coverage". One sentence is a passing mention, and the writer goes on to describe a seperate point or incident that was, in actuality, the subject of interest.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Even with some media mention about the ramming, this isn't of proven lasting importance. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While that is one perspective. I would say that the articles that use this attack as an example of an early instance of the Vehicle ramming attacks that would soon become an all-too-familiar terrorist tactic refute Nom's claim that article should be deleted because "The media repeated the same story for a few days]] in late August and early September (2011) but... lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE."E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete -- the article reads like a news report: who; what; when; where. The sources presented as an argument for sustained coverage are passing mentions. There's no lasting significance or societal impact and no depth of coverage; fails WP:NOTNEWS. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have trouble following along, read the rationales provided. Other stuff is not being discussed here and, as I said in the past, I'll get around to those incidents eventually and access them objectively. Page views, server space, links, and being "user-friendly" (first time I heard that one!) are just more arguments to avoid from any competent editor. I am actually heartened by the fact more editors are understanding our notability guidelines.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:POINTy comment, and, now that I mention it, WP:POINTy AfD, on in a series of WP:POINTy AfDs by TheGracefulSlick arguing for deletion of well-sourced terrorist attack articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment for now - This is a difficult one to say the least. I'll dispense with the weak arguments presented first. As of this moment, this article actually has a better argument for WP:PERSISTENCE/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE than the 2016 Nice attack. I say this because the Nice attack, though notable, is almost exclusively discussed in sources from 2016 with only two citations from 2017. By contrast, this 2011 attack has been discussed by sources, however limitedly, in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, and even in 2017. The first real question with regards to this is, whether or not this can be considered routine coverage, even if persistent. I'm a firm no on this, specifically because a terror attack isn't simply routine coverage and because coming up multiple times in six years negates any routineness about it. I'm also not entirely sure why the OP has linked to Wikiproject:Diversity in their nomination, I assume this was a mislink meant to be for WP:DIVERSE. Eh, again, the sources aren't mirror images of each other and they aren't just local. So this argument doesn't hold much water. Same with WP:GEOSCOPE, national and international coverage does negate this argument. The OP isn't particularly interested in a GNG argument, since it's obvious that this article will meet it; it received some significant coverage in a variety of reliable sources independent of the subject and is thus presumed notable. You could make that argument and just walk away, to be fair. There's also somebody's "litmus test" for this article about there being casualties, this event has 8/9 (IB/Lede) casualties. As I've explained before, a casualty and a fatality are not the same thing. Casualties include injuries, fatalities, for obvious reasons, do not. That dispensed with, the nom does bring up something of particular value to this kind of discussion. That is, WP:LASTING. The big keep or delete split really should come down to that question. The closest this article comes to meeting lasting, afaict, is the branding of this attack as being an early example of the the terrorist vehicle-ramming attacks phenomenon within the article itself. A check of the sources supporting this claim ... do not support it. From one specific source; In 2011, when a stolen taxi rammed into a police roadblock outside a club in Tel Aviv, injuring seven, the Jerusalem Post reported that it was the fifth attack of its kind in the past three years. Beyond that, while its part of the I/P conflict, nothing seems to have precipitated out of it. No retaliation, no policy, no nothing except the cited claim that other vehicle-ramming attacks drew inspiration for this one. Right now, I'm leaning towards a weak delete. I'll have to revisit this, and find the previous AfD, before making a final statement on it. This is just what I have for now. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cleaned up, made more accurate, and expanded the subhead "Vehicle ramming as a trend" in response ot Mr rnddude's thoughtful comment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:GEOSCOPE is met by seeing this article as an integral part of the articles from which it is linked, these include List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011, vehicle-ramming attack, and Stabbing as a terrorist tactic. This perspective is supported not only by the articles linked in subhead "Vehicle ramming as a trend", but by the fact that because it is part of a series of incidents that constitute a wave of terrorism that have caused the once peaceful streets streets of Tel Aviv, Paris and other cites to be under so constant patrol by armed guards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1.) this article is valuable as a detailed account linked from other article; 2.) there is a sort of people's vote by our users, shown in this pageview chart [3]; and 3.) WP:GNG. Coverage meets the standards laid out under WP:GNG and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the note, I'll take a second look through the article in the morning. I'm loathe to delete articles that are well written and well cited when I think of the micro-stub, no future, articles we keep around to gather dust and that get looked at once a week when compared to articles that have regular daily viewership. You know, I visited Strasbourg a few months ago. On my way to eat at a restaurant on my second day there, while in a small corridor alley of a street, I walked straight past four heavily armed (assault rifle carrying) soldiers that were just out there patrolling the streets. You could tell by the non-reaction of anybody else that this was just another part of daily life, for me, living in Australia, it felt like a modern Napoleonic era. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your rationale will depend on what guideline you're demonstrating the article meets or fails to meet. If you're going after events then what you'll aim to demonstrate is that Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect and Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). So you'll want a combination of GNG, LASTING (if applicable - not always on recent events) and DIVERSE backed by DEPTH and PERSISTENT. The latter part is easy to demonstrate. The problem lies in the "enduring historical significance" and "LASTING" portion which are difficult to demonstrate at all and are entirely subjective. Perosnally, I tend to drift towards considering multiple relevant guidelines, the arguments already presented, the article itself and then forming my position based on that. Sometimes I know based on the article what my position is, but, that's a rarity. In this instance, I failed to find any immediate lasting effect, but, like I said, I'll revisit it in the morning. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mr rnddude don't be fooled by Gregory's "expansion". The sources, as you noted, do not say what he is claiming. In the book source as well, the attack is briefly mentioned but there is no connection to "making holy war". It goes without saying since you have thoughtfully analyzed the article but page views and wikilinks are not indications of notability, as Gregory has asserted too many times. His, umm, "interpretation" of GEOSCOPE is quite mistaken as well to put it nicely.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With regards to making holy war; All of these perpetrators made obvious their desire to make "holy war". Last sentence of Note 15 pg 12. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, because of the continuing coverage spanning 2011, 2012 and 2013; the 2014 and 2016 explainers of vehicular terrorism in Slate[1], in NBC News,[2] and in Australia's The New Daily[3] that specifically cite the 2011 Tel Aviv attack; and the 2017 white paper on "Vehicles as a Weapon of Terror"[4] by the Counter Extremism Project that also references Tel Aviv. In addition, the Tel Aviv attack is included in the 2013 book A Citizen’s Guide to Terrorism and Counterterrorism.[5] Now, the first claim for deletion is WP:LASTING, but LASTING says that an event with "lasting significance is likely to be notable;" i.e., not having LASTING by itself is no grounds for deletion. The second claim is that «The media repeated the same story for a few days». But the criteria for WP:109PAPERS is "stories are reported in the news just once on a single day, or over a period of a few days, and then are forgotten." Well, this story certainly was not forgotten in 2012-2017. The third claim is WP:NOTNEWS, but the relevant fail criteria are "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" and "breaking news". Again, reporting from 2012 and 2013 and books and explainers from years later do not meet either. The fourth claim for deletion is that the article fails diversity in sources. I don't know what that means; certainly the sources are from Australia, Israel, the United States, the UK and others. Does that fail WP:DIVERSITY?. The next claim is quite curious: WP:BOMBARD "sources saying the same thing". Not applicable, as the sources span time and place. Following is the claim that WP:GEOSCOPE is not met. But WP:GEOSCOPE says "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group."; i.e., it is a good to have, but not a must have. Next the claim is made that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is not met, but again, see coverage 2011-2013. Plus, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE actually says: "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance" ---please see the 2014-2017 explainers and white paper. Finally, claims are made that reportages on the trials and convictions of the terrorists (i.e. criminals) are WP:ROUTINE. But back when the terrorist was a mere suspect, liable to be let go after 72 hrs, did we know what the outcome of the investigations and trials were going to be? WP:ROUTINE is clearly aimed at weddings, game scores, the police blotter and "often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers". Such a serious misreading of policy should be tempered by reading WP:NOTROUTINE, which explains: "Be careful not to make WP:ROUTINE mean something that it does not. Just because a news article is written about a pre-planned event does not make it "routine" coverage." XavierItzm (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - this is a routine event and the article attempts to pump up its significance in the greater context of the ongoing Israeli Palestinian conflict. There is no evidence that this event was tied to any terror group - it was by all appearances a disgruntled 21 year old. Nobody was killed, thankfully. The background section doesn't fit - efforts to secure the border have nothing to do with this attack, yet the article tries to conflate the two. The radicalization section is likewise out of place. The suspect practiced with a knife and stick in his apartment? He made and deleted a video? He tried to take a tractor but it was gone? It's four paragraphs of routine info that tricks readers into thinking there's more here than there is. The vehicle ramming as a trend section is also a weak attempt to beef this up through association with more notable vehicle ramming events. Each source listed only mentions the event in one sentence, with no context or indication of significance. Finally, per WP:NOTNEWS, there's no indication that there's any enduring legacy from this event, or that it's become part of the cultural zeitgeist in any way. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 22:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - No deaths, no lasting importance. WP:NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[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.