The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Tel Aviv knife attack[edit]

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

A classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. There is no enduring notability and no reason why this attack deserves an article over the hundreds of random attacks that happen every day worldwide. Step hen 02:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi Stephen, with the number of terrorist attacks in recent time that have started out as isolated events and later turned out to be part of coordinated attacks, I have to admit that I created the article out of a Wikipedian's automatic "Do we have an article about this?"-reaction when I heard about it on the news. Even though every attack is a tradgedy, I'm relieved that this event didn't turn into something even worse and I will not contest a deletion of the article. w.carter-Talk 05:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not just a NOTNEWS, the scope of the attack, the number of people injured, the fact that an America, and an American soldier to boot, and it happened while VP Biden was in town all makes it notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Proponent of deletion hasn't proven and can't prove at this time that this will not have long term effect. Advise to revisit at a later date.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Terrible argument. The nominator can't show that it wont have long term notability, you can't show that it will.--Savonneux (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Terrible comment. The nominator has to support his argument and he can't. I don't have to disprove an unsubstantiated argument. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not your typical terror attack in Israel. The ones in Jaffa are much less common. Additionally the number of people injured and the fact that it was an American killed while Biden was visiting has brought a lot more notability and media coverage to the attack. The article definitely needs expanding, but it is notable. - Galatz ^Talk 18:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GNG; the gauge here is the extent and depth of news coverage, which has been massive, intense and international.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pr nom, Huldra (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a major notable terrorist attack. The fact that the lone casualty was an American retired military personnel does not increase the notability of the attack. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth, reported stories (not wire service) reports by journalists writing for major dailies in Germany, Spain, the U.S., Britain and other countries are what make it notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading though the comments here (and I know that this is WP:OSE) I can't help but comparing this to 2015 Ikea stabbing attack and Trollhättan school attack, both of which took place in my own back yard. Then again this attack was in a region where violent events are more common. Not casting a vote though since I'm not familiar with all the fine print on WP policy in these cases. w.carter-Talk 21:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No special rules apply, just WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This article needs expantion, I can try and help it. About notability? I think this incident is notable than other incidents in this current phase of violance. This incident is more relevent than the Panorama stabbing. The old attack is indeed notable because it was the first time in over a decade, when a Palestinian with a work permit (of those we have over 50,000 today) who used his entry right for an attack. The incident was followed by the suspention of 1,200 entry permits from Hebron and was in one of the deadliest days in the Israeli Palestinian conflict since the end of the Second Intifada, with another three victims of attacks in a seperate incident, including an American citizen and a Palestinian citizen. This incident is also notable, a number of 12 casualties in total is above the complete majority of the other incidents and the victims were of many nationalities. This incident is also the first significant incident since January, when the violance levels seemed to fall down, it is a turning point. The attack, which was perpetrated by a Palestinian illegal resident was followed by the government's decision to finally to fix fences in Jeruaslem, punish illegal residents aiders such as drivers and hosters, closing "inciting TV channels" and suspention of work and trade permits of Palestinians in a larger scale. The incident also occured during a visit of Joe Biden, which was pretty close to the incident. So this incident is notable, more than some incidents that has articles of their own, but this it need an article at all? I can't say. So I am neutral.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also today we were reported that 250 Palestinian illegal residents were arrested and also a security cabinet meeting is expected to make new policies. Source

Keep for now - I agree with Bolter21. This attack does qualify as notable, but could benefit from some significant expansion. Parsley Man (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I tend to think an article about a violent killing spree in an area where violence is common, that is written within a day or two of the killings, is WP:TOOSOON since it's hard to tell in that amount of time if this violent incident truly has any significance in the midst of a plethora of violent incidents. However, there's enough casualties and international coverage in this case that editors should be given a chance to expand the article. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete We already have an article for the spate of attacks since sept/oct and every individual incident doesn't need a new page especially without abundantly clear repercussions (of which this is not changing what the others have failed to do ieither). Further the page creator admits it was created on-the-spot. If it grows theers nothing to stop its recreation.Lihaas (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, for the immediate, Cabinet level, decision to complete the security barrier to prevent guys like this from stabbing people.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taking into account the time and place - Jaffa, where those attacks are rare and the "coincidence" of the attack to VP Baiden visit, who was about mile from it. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering the widespread coverage by reliable sources from several countries, I really dont understand the argument that it isnt notable. The nominator has also not provided any evidence to support his claim that the article has "no enduring notability" FlickrWarrior (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - widespread coverage. a personal opinion about non notability does not trump widespread coverage and great sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.