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. Whether to keep or to merge/redirect. Sandstein 09:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A case of WP:NOTNEWS on a non-notable attack associated with a much larger conflict. This article was deleted in 2010 (then overturned to "no consensus" because it was a recent event) and I can see why: there has been no WP:LASTING impact. Sadly, these types of incidents are common on both sides and it requires noteworthy evaluation overtime to be consider more than news. A few days of media attention is just not enough. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slick, Any particular reason why you omitted to add the previous AFD discussion to this page?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:NEWS deletion rationale cannot be applied as it not "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities " it high-profile criminal act that was covered by multiple WP:DIVERSE sources per WP:NCRIME--Shrike (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: can you explain how you consider two days of news coverage as a "high-profile" act? Also, please elaborate on what made this "high-profile" such as a notable WP:LASTING impact. Thanks. And yes it is WP:ROUTINE news reporting; crimes are not exempt from that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Please actually read WP:DIVERSE. Sources are discounted if they "simply mirror or tend to follow other sources"; that is the case here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained it was covered by multipleinternational news sources like BBC,AP and Telegraph and it was not in passing hence its not WP:ROUTINE.WP:LASTING is only one of the factors that govern notability there are others that this event meets--Shrike (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. And @Shrike: do you realize the very policy you use (WP:GEOSCOPE) says "events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article". So, again, I ask what is the WP:LASTING impact of this WP:ROUTINEly covered incident?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per WP:NCRIME. Coverage exists also post 2010. Perp being a PA policeman increased the notability and impact of this event.Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per K.e.coffman. Reason: WP:NCRIME, which requires that media coverage of criminal acts satisfy the other requirements of WP:EVENT. The coverage of this stabbing clearly fails the requirements for both depth and duration of coverage. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 18:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:MShabazz Should event to satisfy all 5 requirements to be notable and worthy of article ?--Shrike (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it only needs to satisfy one of the criteria, but this attack doesn't satisfy any of the inclusion criteria. No lasting effects. No "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group". No "coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle". No diversity of sources. As far as depth of coverage, "coverage must be significant and not in passing". Nope. In the end, this attack -- tragic as it was -- falls into the category of "[r]outine kinds of news events (including most crimes...) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time" and isn't notable. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 15:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I am very open to a merge and redirect because of the excellent reasons offered by K.e.coffman and MShabazz. I am not implying, however, that the subject is any more notable, just that there is a legitimate article to redirect to.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Before it is claimed here as "continuing coverage", the two sources added are passing mentions of this incident -- as in one sentence worth. The first is from a list and the second discusses a completely unrelated attack that was prevented. Simply mentioning that this 2010 incident existed is not enough and editors should be familiar with that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note That this topis was brought to AFD in 2010 (Nom failed to link that discussion to this page). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah junction stabbing It is an interesting discussion because it was closed as Delete despite what reads like a consensus to Keep; the decision was overturned.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN Article has been expanded to include discussion of the "extraordinary" nature of this terrorist attack carried out by a police officer, a member of the Palestinian Civil Police Force. The fact that perp was a police officer serving on the staff of the Chief of Police in Ramallah, a large city that is the de facto capitol of the Palestinian Authority, made this attack notable, as evidenced by the national and international coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of citing an essay, would you care to address the fact that the article fails to satisfy the relevant notability guideline? — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 14:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
fyi, Shabazz, WP:HEY is a standard way of waving a flag "to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion".E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, both of them made unfounded assertions. Can you please respond to the objections raised above that coverage of this attack does not satisfy WP:DIVERSE or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 15:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly; DIVERSE: "Significant national or international coverage," and WP:SIGCOV are met by articles including BBC: "Defence officials accuse Palestinian PM of "inciting anti-Israeli violence"", and "Soldier's Murder Was Latest in Trend of Terror by PA Security" in Haaretz. As you know, only ONE of the indici of notability listed under WP:NCRIME technically needs to be met ot establish NOTABILITY, but here we do have ONGOING COVERAGE in article including 2013, Times of Israel"Palestinian stabs Israeli to death in West Bank" and Al-Monitor 2014 "Druze Knesset member slams Arab leaders as 'weak'", and Jerusalem Post 2014, "Border Police stop terrorist en-route to suicide bombing at Tapuah Junction".E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets WP:GNG and per WP:HEY I believe E.M.Gregory clearly edited the page in a way to show it had coverage over the course of several years. - GalatzTalk 15:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite a single source that shows coverage of the attack or analysis of its importance after 2010. Not a mention of it in a timeline of attacks against Israelis, or memorials. Coverage or analysis of the attack. There just isn't any. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 15:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man argument. Extensive analysis given in "Context" section of article, more than enough to establish notability. MShabazz is not making a rules-based argument when he demands post-2010 analysis, alhtouth. as Galatz points out, it exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three which are currently used in the article after 2010: [1], [2], [3]. - GalatzTalk 16:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort, but the first link is about a memorial, the second link is a timeline, and the third is a passing mention of the incident in an article about a 2014 arrest near Tapuah Junction. No continued coverage. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And an editorial in a major newspaper 8 months after the attack occurred, and the 20102012 (correct date) book by Martin Gilbert... Shabazz, your argument that there has been no "coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle", is false.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a point in your comments. The event was clearly notable enough that they covered the memorial in the first. The second and third found it notable to include, I am sure tons of stuff has happened that did not get mentioned because it wasn't notable. - GalatzTalk 18:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that no Hebrew or Arabic sources have been added to article yet, although they must exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sigh, I knew the second Gregory just piled on new reports and quotes like he always does in these circumstances, editors would blindly vote keep. Already fooled you @Galatz:; there is no impact or analysis for this incident to be considered for anything more than a brief mention in the timeline already mentioned. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you on that. Whether you argue about the sources showing continued coverage or not, the fact that it was a Palestinian Preventive Security is rare, and makes this instance stand out from others that might not seem notable. Similarly Salam Fayyad condemned this attack, something else that almost never happens. If you look at the article before the nomination [4] vs the current article [5] they are vastly different and that was why I referenced WP:HEY in my vote. The original article didn't do much to show notability, but the revised version does. - GalatzTalk 18:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Galatz: try WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:PRIMARYNEWS -- good reads and actual policies. I don't recall rarity ever being a sure-fire reason to keep an article, especially when the act itself is common, but maybe these actual guidelines will explain further why this is not enough for a standalone article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rarity certainly isn't a sure fire reason, but my point is that there are several RS over a period of time that discuss the event, plus due to the issues above it is not WP:ROUTINE. Plus keep in mind that WP:GNG trumps these other guidelines mentioned, and the events meet the criteria. - GalatzTalk 21:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand how the sources not meet WP:DIVERSE.Telegraph,BBC,NYPOST,JPOST,HAARETZ and Boston Globe.Yes they reporting the same event so details will be the same but there are not mirroring each other.--Shrike (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: the issue is there is no significant post-analysis or societal impact directly related to this event. It received a wave of news coverage reporting in the same manner that this incident exists. It declined to brief mentions thereafter. Common sense (and our guidelines) would say it makes much more sense to merge and redirect this article since it is a small part of a larger conflict. So far, no one has specified a significant impact because there isn't one -- hence a reason this does not need a standalone page. What possibly needs to be said here that cannot be summarized in a list? The answer is nothing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well there were a number of impacts here. The settlement movement suggested to name a settlement to honor the deceased Druze victim, and Druze leadership visited the spot - which is significant for intra-Israeli relations. The fact that the perp was a high-ranking officer in one of the PA's security apparatuses is significant and affected future cooperation. This was the first deadly incident (and the prior incident was in Gaza, which is becoming quite separate) against Israelis in over a year (see - [6]) - so this wasn't quite part of a routine conflict at that time. Following the event there were also reprisals (or "price tags") - which is also significant given the timeline.Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources attest to these points or are these your opinions? A memorial of some kind to a victim is certainly not uncommon (its localized regardless). I would love to see the sources that support your claims about how Druze leadership visiting the site affected relations significantly and how the identity of the perp affected "future cooperations". Price tagging is also common practice in these types of incidents. So please provide the sources @Icewhiz:; I hope you didn't expect me to take your word for it. Possibly find the WP:LASTING societal (not localized) impact that keep voters seem to forget too, if you don't mind.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The junction was named after him: [7][8], and here are calls by Druze leadership in 2011 to name a new settlement for him - [9]. As for reprisals - it isn't that common to begin with, was less common in around 2010 (this really picked up in 2011 following the Itamar attack), and is mainly done by the Jewish residents in response to attacks/actions against the residents - I will have to get back to you regarding sourcing here - It's complex as the "price tag" common name was not as established back then.Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom (GracefulSlick) is attempting to require that every one of the indici discussed in WP:NCRIME and WP:EVENTCRITERIA be met with multiple examples. But the "test" for notability of an event or crime is whether it is " "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". We gauge this using a set of set of guidelines that require good faith interpretation by editors who are understood to be attempting to reach a consensus. Note that WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE are indici of notability; there is no requirement that each of them be met, let alone that each of them be met to the satisfaction of any individual editor or group of editors. Also Note that all editors on this page have extensive editing experience; I strongly suggest that we all attempt to WP:AGF and that, as a first step towards reaching consensus, editors should cease accusing highly experiences Wikipedians of having failed to read the guidelines they cite.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unchanged -- still "Redirect". Coverage is WP:ROUTINE for this type of crime; no lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an personal opinion, NOT a policy based argument; WP:ROUTINE does not make an exception for "this type of event" (the point-blank murder of a driver by a police officer as an act of political terrorism.) WP:ROUTINE applies to "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out." The fact that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a policy-based argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON on top of bludgeon... bludgeon...bludgeon. Maybe your call for assuming good faith can go both ways? Every time an editor says something you disagree with you just claim they don't like the subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman is free to offer his opinion that this is "routine," but as an experienced editor who weighs in on virtually every terrorism-related discussion at AFD he ought to know better than to mis-cite a guideline.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article; one sentence already present in the "Timeline" article is enough to cover it. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but a list entry doesn't "cover it." Not at all. Those very brief listings leave out a great deal of detail, including the fact that the Israeli was murdered in cold blood while waiting at a traffic light, responses by the Druze community, the call by an MK for the death penalty, the responses by PA officialdom, the great rarity of a highly placed police official committing an act of terrorism, the responses by PA politicians, the situating of this attack by multiple security analysts within what was then a new trend towards incitement to murder by Palestinian Authority leaders, and much more. We can WP:PRESERVE information to Wikipedia's readers users seeking to understand the IP conflict by creating and keeping well-sourced articles like this instead of mere lists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please offer a basis for your opinion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still expanding this article, see, for example, this [10] interesting contextualization by Avi Issacharoff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for revealing that attacks by PA officers were much more common than previously stated with this source which, again, only passively mentions this attack! Icewhiz do you want to change your response to "merge and redirect" with this new information? Gregory has shown us this was part of a specific trend -- something like this can easily be summed up in the articles already mentioned above since there was nothing individually notable about this incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fact check Slick's assertion. Attacks by Palestinian police officers are shown by the article Slick references to have been extremely rare in 2010. What the article asserts is that there was an "emerging trend" of attacks by various Palestinian Authority security services. Incidents that highlight emergin trends are, of course, notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unchanged still "Keep" I continue to think both that the article passes WP:NCRIME and that as per WP:PRESERVE we would be wrong to lose useful information by merging this article to a list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article created in 2010 and edited by over two dozen editors throughout the years. Edits in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017. It sure looks as plenty of people throughout the years (not to mention sources such as the BBC) found the subject matter encyclopaedic. Now, in all fairness, let's ask a question: Is the Wikipedia running out of server space? No. This event has been widely covered by WP:RS worldwide and the article continues to be edited 7 years after the fact! There is no sound rationale for deletion, and if this were deleted for reasons of being considered "minor" (in the eyes of the deleter), then about 1/2 of the Wikipedia, with articles with less sources and less edits, would have to be deleted too, for consistency. As the latter is unlikely to happen, the deletion of this page and not of the others would show clear bias/censorship by the deleters. XavierItzm (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The number of people editing an article is not a measure of notability. You haves copy and pasted the second half of your statement three times now and all it does is use WP:OSE arguements and ad hominem attacks. If you can't even be bothered with writing out a thoughtful rationale, don't participate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where does User:XavierItzm make an ad hominem attack?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since this appears to be User:XavierItzm's first comment on this thread, I suppose you to be implying that he has made similar comments at other AFD discussions. I am not only unaware of any policy prohibiting editors from doing so, I have noticed that it is a common practice with editors who frequent areas I am familiar with, (editors on politician AFD discussions using the same wording repeatedly to point out that being an unsuccessful candidate does not confer notability,; editors at author-related discussions using the same wording repeatedly to point out that writing a book that garners multiple, independent reviews does confer notability).E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this AFD is part of a recent series of terrorism-related AFDs in which Nom attempts to change the usual outcome of articles about terrorist attacks. At least in recent years, terrorist attacks have been judged notable underWP:NCRIME, when they meet WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE, and, if brought to AFD a year or so later, have been uniformly kept if there has been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING. Here GSlick, persuades a fellow editor that this is the usual outcome [11]. Obviously, Slick and I have differ. But editors coming to this page should know that this is part of a campaign to shift the usual outcome in a category of topics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is clear WP:NOTNEWS, just as the nominator stated. I don't understand all the Keep votes; I don't see lasting significant coverage. It's a single incident whose notability does not rise to the level required by Wikipedia. Rockypedia (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Or merge. Plenty of news sources throughout 2010 and a few post 2010 ones. The fact that this happened in 2010 satisfies p1 of Notnews. Attempting to have this removed because it fails point2 Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events doesn't follow the next next sentence: For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. An Israeli soldier being stabbed by Palestinian police is not a routine announcement. I feel that this nomination doesn't inkeep with the spirit of NOTNEWS. L3X1(distænt write))evidence( 12:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is very clearly no consensus to delete this article, but there is still an ongoing debate about whether or not to keep the article in place or merge and redirect to Timeline_of_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#2005.E2.80.93present:_Post-Intifada.2C_Gaza_conflict and no clear consensus on that. It would be helpful if the post-relist discussion focused on whether or not news coverage of the event was sustained rather than routine.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ATraintalk 17:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AlessandroTiandelli333 how so? Do not just say "it's a terror attack". I urge you to look through the WP:ROUTINE coverage and come to a more thorough conclusion. At the very least, consider a the merge proposals if you can't be bothered with analyzing the sources.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I stand by my earlier keep vote) There is enough coverage to pass the usual NCRIME criteria. Just because the victim was Israeli is not a reason to set a different bar. Respectfully nom should stop replying to almost every comment here, per WP:BLUDGEON.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz I agree we shouldn't set this at a different bar for an Israeli victim. Which is why it needs to be merged and redirected. My take on policy does not change based on the origin of the victim or perpetrator.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the very similar 2015 Nice attack, which, like the 2013 La Défense attack, and the attack under discussion at this AfD was an ideologically motivated, terrorist attack on a soldier in a time of peace. It really does begin to look as though separate standards are being applied to attacks in Israel than are applied to attacks in Christian countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory it's amazing. Not only are you still WP:BLUDGEONing this AfD and using WP:OSE arguments, you are now accusing me of bias. You do release this is the first I/P-based article I have nominated, right? I judge everything by policy. Maybe those other articles are unnotable too; you act like I've analyzed every single article on Wikipedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have WP:AGF by accepting your statement that "My take on policy does not change based on the origin of the victim or perpetrator." and that "we shouldn't set this at a different bar for an Israeli victim." What I dispute is your assertion that this page should therefore "be merged and redirected." because after years of editing terrorism-related pages regularly, it does not seem to me that we delete pages on extremely similar that demonstrate this level of sourcing in Western countries other than Israel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I ask that you will apply the same standards to this murder of an Israeli soldier that were applied to attacks on French soldiers. (And that you cease WP:WIKIHOUNDING, (interaction analysis here: [12]) me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still support the merge and redirect proposal because not one single editor has demonstrated a significant impact resulting from this event, nor any post analysis that makes this more than a news story. News sources that are used simply summarize the event, sometimes with eyewitness accounts which is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. After the initial wave of coverage, there was simply passing mentions that keep voters try to pass off as significant but according to WP:INDEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE they are not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note, that notability under WP:NCRIME, is defined as: "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" Thes has been established by coverage of this attack that meets WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE. Opinions differ on the quesiton of whether coverage in the years since the attack has met WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:LASTING. But Note that, (as 2 experienced editors on opposite sides of the keep-or-merge discussion agree above) it is only required to meet one of these 5 criteria. There is no requirement that all 5 indicators of notability be met - let alone that they be met to the satisfaction of any individual editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Despite your repeated assertions to the contrary, nothing "has been established". If it had been, we wouldn't be having this discussion. By the way, do you realize that you've made more than 30% of the edits to this page? Please stop bludgeoning the process. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 14:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unchanged (KEEP) I continue to stand by my opinion that this sourcing in this article meets both WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
UnchangedE.M.Gregory is still the top contributor to this AfD, with more than twice as many edits as the number two contributor. BLUDGEON indeed. Give it up already. You've been successful at muddying the waters, and this will close as "no consensus". Now you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS and abusing the process. Please stop or I will report you at WP:AE. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 16:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Documenting an editor's WIKIHOUNDING is not "casting aspersions." And I just want to mention that you have just "muddied the waters" by asserting that the closing editor will close this as no consensus rather than as keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but accusing another editor of having one set of standards for Israeli victims and a lower bar for non-Israeli victims is casting aspersions. And while it's thoughtful for you to check in and inform us every day that you haven't changed your mind, agreeing with oneself doesn't magically create a consensus. There is no consensus to keep, nor is there a consensus to delete. In plain English, that means there's no consensus. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and yet there is a problem when editors apply different standards by making Israel-related AfD discussions unusually acrimonious, and by flocking to vote "delete" at Israel-related AfD, when they do not do with extremely similar attacks in other economically developed Western democracies that have sizeable numbers of politically Islamist citizens and where illegal entrants to the country carry out attacks. Note: 2015 Nice attack and 2013 La Défense attack did not get dragged to AfD. What I have requested of the editor above, is that standards be applied uniformly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unchanged - "KEEP" - noteworthy and encyclopaedic article, as demostrated by the numerous WP:RS, and by the numerous Wikipedia editors who edited the article each year since its creation in 2010.XavierItzm (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone edited my comment of 18:09, 30 July 2017. Wow. I think even editing one's own comments is kinda iffy, though obviously I just went back and edited mine. But editing someone else's? Not cool. XavierItzm (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow indeed. Nobody gets to !vote twice. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 11:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but neither does any editor get to alter a comment. Worse, I contacted the editor who made the change, because many editors are unaware of this rule, (here: [13]) and that editor chose not to return and make it right. I was WP:AGF on both sides (that XavierItzm forgot that he had already iVoted on this AfD - that happens; and that TheGracefulSlick was unaware of this rule. To my mind the worst faux pas here is GracefulSlick was notified and failed to make it right.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unchanged - Keep - Regardless of all other arguments above, I believe the article meets WP:GNG which trumps all other claims. - GalatzTalk 14:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unchanged E.M.Gregory is still BLUDGEONing. He has made a whopping 40% of the edits to this page. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 11:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note, however, that MShabazz has iVoted ("unchanged")redaction twice since the page was relisted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note That's just not true. What's unchanged is that you're still bludgeoning the process. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 13:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring the comment I made a few hours ago I commented: Note that MShabazz has already iVoted "Unchanged" following the relist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC) and that he removed [14] my comment without an edit note. I apologize for my carelessly reworded replacement of the deleted edit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2017 (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.