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 delete. No evidence of longterm importance is presented or accepted (mentions like this one are prima facie not in-depth discussions); NOTNEWS and NOTMEMORIAL apply. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Danny Gonen[edit]

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

This is nothing except a memorial article for a non-notable person killed in an (unfortunately) commonplace event. Violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL as well as WP:NOTNEWS. Also a fine example of WP:RECENTISM; within a month or two this event will be almost entirely forgotten. Creator named it "Terrorist Shooting of Danny Gonen", which suggests an improper purpose. Zero^talk 16:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion about article's original name is false.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it was the original name, here is where you renamed it. And I'll note your comment "starting article on awful, cold-blooded murder" on your creation edit. It was indeed awful, but that is not and has never been justification for an article. Zero^talk 00:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, after TheLongTone prodded it for deletion on the NOTNEWS argument I changed the name in the belief that LongTone had mistaken the article for a merely horrific but "routine" criminal shooting, not realizing that it was an act of terrorism. And that others might repeat that error. In fact - at first - I thought that you had made the same mistake when you brought it to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nom has clearly failed to perform WP:BEFORE, I am a major fan of WP:BEFORE. Editors who perform due diligence as per WP:BEFORE are unlikely to nominate articles that, like this one, cover a topic that received in-depth media coverage, is well-sourced, and is part of a routine Wikipedia practice of having articles that cover episodes of terrorism; recent examples of this policy include 2015 Chattanooga shootings (the article on which I modeled this article and title), and 2015 Boston beheading plot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For some background on how the Wikipedia community is performing on issues like this in the ARBPIA topic area, editors may benefit from reading http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/12/24/wikipedia-all-murdered-israeli-children-are-murdered-by-arabs. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. Routine news does not belong in an encyclopedia, theres another place for that. And yes, this is routine news. nableezy - 16:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pr the above WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. In other news; 21 year old Mohammed Ahmed Alauna was shot and killed by Israeli forces yesterday, (see Haaretz-article). What is the chance on seeing an article called the Shooting of Mohammed Ahmed Alauna? Exactly zero, I believe. Huldra (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the snow is falling I PRODed this as WP:NOTNEWS. PROD removed by article creator who described the PROD as "frivolous". Not so. 13:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep As per WP:GNG the most important of the several policies that distinguish notable events from routine news and events. WP:GNG reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article." I point you to in-depth articles on this terror murder in the New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, Haaretz, and elsewhere. I remind editors raising WP:NOTNEWS that WP is WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and that WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a policy based argument. An event with this breadth and depth of coverage does not have to demonstrate ongoing impact to be WP notable. Under WP:EVENTCRIT an event has to meet WP:INDEPTH, which this event objectively does. Nevertheless, this shooting has had demonstrable impact (in article since the creation) on the Israeli conversation about whether to agree to a prisoner exchange that Hamas is requesting this summer (for the bodies of soldiers, or for the return of a mentally ill Israelis who crossed the border into Gaza). It is argued that since this was one of 6 recent terror murders carried out by convicted terrorists released in the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, a fresh exchange endangers the lives of Israelis and is, therefore, bad policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment While working on another AFD I came across this keep iVote [1]:

User:Libertarian12111971 argues "if this article is marked for deletion, then it honestly wouldn't make sense if the 2013 Santa Monica shooting, 2013 Hialeah shooting, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting, Clackamas Town Center shooting, Southern California Edison shooting, etc., etc. articles aren't." The article under debate was kept. From this and other recent AFDs I see that there has been a trend to keep shooting attacks as WP:NOTABLE.

There is, of course, also a clear tradition of keeping ideologically motivated terror attacks as notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a killing where 1 person was killed, 1 wounded. In comparison: 2013 Santa Monica shooting: 6 killed, 4 injured; 2013 Hialeah shooting: 7 killed, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting: 3 killed, 4 wounded; Clackamas Town Center shooting: 3 killed, 1 wounded; Southern California Edison shooting: 3 killed, 2 wounded. How many fatal shootings are there in Chicago every year? Several hundred, I believe. We do not have an article on each of those. As for ideologically motivated, sure, I´ll vote "keep" on this article the day Wikipedia have an article called Shooting of Mohammed Ahmed Alauna. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG isnt a policy, its a guideline. WP:NOT is a policy. nableezy - 21:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably look at where that link goes. It kinda says that basing whether an article should exist because others do is a poor argument. Which is what you are going. nableezy - 22:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:GNG. The case received much int'l coverage and over a month later, there are still articles that mention it. The fact the murderer was released during Gil'ad Shalit exchange, makes this more notable. 06:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC) — 109.64.140.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete*, no lasting impact. Wikipedia is not a daily newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - editors write No lasting impact but the fact is, over a month after it happens, it is still being mentioned in multiple news sources. The assertion it has no lasting impact isn't only premature but also inaccurate (to say the least). 21:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC) — 79.178.39.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS
You're proposing to delete this? Seriously? It's got, like, coverage from a shtload of New York Times, Guardian, Washington Post articles. It's got a whole section of serious-sounding analysis of political impact, and it doesn't take a genius to see why if a couple of guys who go hiking get offed by a terrorist scumbag who was already a convicted terrorist/murder/scumbag doing time until some genius negotiator let him out of jail, that this sort of incident might, just might, tip a political debate about letting more terrorist scumbag murderers out of jail. Oh, you also don't have to be a genius to look at the datelines and see that coverage of this thing continues, or to realize that since they caught the guys who did it there will be a trial(s) and lots more coverage, and more debate about giving get-out-of-jail-free cards to terrorist scumbags KEEP.SummerSchool55 (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC) — SummerSchool55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per Malik Shabazz. — Cliftonian (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2015 (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.